WP No. 36/11 1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 36 OF 2011 Priyadarshini Education Society, At Post Savedi, Ahmednagar Through its President, Smt. Ratnaprabha d/o. Ratnakar Bhalerao, R/o. Plot No. 376, "Ratnakunj", Near St. Monika College, Savedi Road, Ahmednagar. ....Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32 & Ors. ....Respondents. Mr. Amol N. Kakade, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. D. R. Korde, A.G.P. for respondent No. 1. Mr. Satyajeet Bora, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 & 3. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & T. V. NALAWADE, JJ. DATED : 16th November, 2011. ORAL ORDER : 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner applied for starting a D. Ed. College on 21st December 2006. It is admitted position that the petitioner WP No. 36/11 2 submitted unregistered lease deed of the premises wherein they were to erect the structure and start D. Ed. College. On 9.5.2007 the petitioner submitted another document showing another location. On 22.8.2007 the petitioner changed the location and submitted document in respect of the third site. On behalf of Western Regional Committee spot inspection was conducted on 5.4.2008 by National Council for Teachers Education ("N.C.T.E." for short). Admittedly, the petitioner submitted the document in respect of registered lease deed of the premises where they proposed to start D. Ed. College. The petitioner now claims that it purchased the said property by registered lease deed on 28th May 2010. 3. The Regional Director of N.C.T.E. rejected the proposal of the petitioner by order dated 13/17th May 2010. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order. By order dated 24.9.2010 the respondent No. 3, appellate authority rejected the appeal and communicated the order of rejection accordingly. 4. The petitioner challenged the said orders in this petition. 5. Shri. Amol Kakade, learned counsel appearing for the WP No. 36/11 3 petitioner submits that petitioner filed an application for starting D. Ed. college in accordance with the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations 2005 (for short "Regulations of 2005").The application came to be rejected by considering the provisions of National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations 2007 (for short "Regulations of 2007"). Second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is in possession of the registered lease deed and sale deed of the subject premises. Considering the infrastructural facilities made available by the petitioner for starting the D. Ed. College, his proposal be considered and accepted. 6. The contesting respondents filed affidavit in reply. By an order dated 27th of June 2011 this Court [Coram : D.B. Bhosale and S.B. Deshmukh, JJ.] directed the learned counsel for the Central Council to take instructions as to whether it is possible to grant provisional recognition subject to the conditions and based on the regulations to the petitioner. 7. Shri. S.S. Bora, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has placed on record copy of minutes of meeting of Western Regional Committee. The Committee was not in favour of WP No. 36/11 4 grant of provisional recognition. 8. In substance, the contentions of learned counsel Shri. Bora is that thrice the petitioner changed the location. The basic lacuna in the application of the petitioner, according to the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is, in view of the provisions of Regulations of 2005, the petitioner failed to submit registered lease deed of the subject premises. The registered lease deed dated 19.4.2008 was submitted, but by that time the Regulations had gone under change. The relevant clause of Rule 5 of Regulations of 2005 reads thus :- "(5) No institution shall be granted recognition under these regulations unless it is in possession of required land on the date of application. The land free from all encumbrances could be either on ownership basis or on lease for a period of not less than 30 years. In cases where under relevant State/UT laws the maximum premissible lease period is less than 30 years, the State Government/UT Administration Law shall prevail." Rule 7 of Regulations of 2007 reads thus :- "(7) No institution shall be granted recognition under these regulations unless it is in possession of required land on the date of WP No. 36/11 5 application. The land free from all encumbrances could be either on ownership basis or on lease from Government/Govt. Institutions for a period of not less than 30 years. In cases where under relevant State/UT laws the maximum permissible lease period is less than 30 years, the State Government/UT Administration law shall prevail. However, no building could be taken on lease for running any teacher training course." 9. The learned counsel for N.C.T.E., therefore, submits that as petitioner failed to satisfy one of the essential condition in respect of production of document of registered lease deed of 30 years duration, the application of the petitioner was rejected. 10. We have perused the relevant provisions of Regulations of 2005 and 2007, impugned orders and the reply filed by the respondents. We have considered the submission advanced by the learned counsel for respective parties. 11. It is admitted position that when the petitioner filed an application for starting D. Ed. College in the month of June 2006, the petitioner was not possessing registered lease deed in respect of the subject premises. Under the Rules, the petitioner WP No. 36/11 6 was required to submit a lease deed of 30 years duration. It is therefore obvious that the registered lease deed was required to be produced with the concerned authority at the time of filing application. There is no dispute on the point that the petitioner, thereafter, changed the location thrice. Inspection of the site was conducted by the authorities of N.C.T.E. on 5.4.2008. The petitioner had secured a registered lease deed of the changed premise on 19.4.2008. 12. In the facts of the case and considering the provisions of the Regulations, we are not convinced with the submissions advanced that application filed in the year 2006 under the Regulation of 2005 ought to have been considered, in spite of amended Regulation of 2007 being brought in to effect from December 2007. 13. In absence of grant of any provisional recognition, we do not notice any lacuna in the view adopted by the N.C.T.E. in rejecting the request of the petitioner to grant permission for provisional recognition to start D. Ed. College. 14. In view of the provisions of Regulations of 2005, the N.C.T.E. considered the application of the petitioner for starting WP No. 36/11 7 D. Ed. College and by passing a reasoned order rejected the said application. The appellate authority confirmed the said view of rejection. In exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, we do not find any infirmity or error in the view adopted by the respondent authorities. 15. Shri. Bora, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submitted that the petitioner is entitled to file fresh proposal alongwith relevant documents including copy of registered lease deed/ sale deed. 16. There is no merit in the petition. The petition stands dismissed. [ T. V. NALAWADE, J.] [ NARESH H. PATIL, J.] ssc/