THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 3966 of 2009 O r d e r: The petitioner, namely Amritha Akshitha H.P.T. College, Metpally, is a college under the control and management of M.S. Chandraiah Educational Society (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Society’). The petitioner, represented by the President of the Society has filed the present writ petition praying for the following relief: The Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate, writ, order or direction calling for the records relating to the order of the 2nd respondent in Order No.F.SRO/NCTE/HPT/2008-2009/5188, dated 23.09.2008 as confirmed by the 1st respondent in Order F.No. 89-337/2008-Appeal/88787, dated 19.12.2008 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner to grant recognition for starting Hindi Pandit Training by taking into consideration the report submitted by the Visiting Team dated 08.05.2008 in respect of Amritha Akshitha H.P.T. College, Metpally Mahaboobnagar District (APS 09043) and to pass such further order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. The Society was established with the avowed object of establishing educational institutions in backward areas of the State. For that purpose, the Society acquired land in an extent of Acs.5.00 in Sy. No. 862 of Metpally village, Wanaparthy Mandal. The Society to realize its avowed object, established Amritha Akshitha College for imparting MBA and MCA courses during the year 1997. Subsequently, it provided separate and independent infrastructural facility to start B.Ed. course as well as Diploma courses in Hindi Pandit Traning and Telugu Pandit Training. After obtaining necessary permissions and recognition from the 2nd respondent, namely the National Council for Teacher Education, commenced the B.Ed. course from the academic year 2007-08. Thereafter, the Society after fulfilling all the requirements in accordance with the provisions of the NCTE Act, 1993 and the Rules made thereunder, submitted application to the 2nd respondent to permit them to start training in Telugu Pandit and Hindi Pandit courses. As no steps were taken pursuant to the application for conducting inspection of the premises, the Society filed writ petition in W.P. No. 5939 of 2008, and on 11.04.2008, this Court, recording the submission made by the counsel for the respondents that the respondents would conduct the inspection, granted interim directions. Pursuant thereto, the 2nd respondent conducted the inspection and found that the infrastructural facilities provided by the Society are sufficient to conduct either Telugu Pandit Training Course or Hindi Pandit Training Course. Thereafter, the Society submitted representation to the 2nd respondent to grant permission to start Hindi Pandit Training course and in the meanwhile they will develop infrastructural facilities as desired by the 2nd respondent. However, it is the case of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent without considering the inspection report of the Visiting Team, which inspected the premises, vide orders dated 23.09.2008, rejected their application for grant of permission to start Hindi Pandit Training course. Aggrieved by the rejection order, the petitioner preferred appeal, but the same by order dated 19.12.2008 was dismissed confirming the order of the 2nd respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by the 2nd respondent as confirmed by the 1st respondent in appeal, refusing to grant permission to the Society to start Hindi Pandit Training course, on the grounds that the built up area of 20,000 Sq. ft. as per the approved building plan is not adequate, the building earmarked is not suitable for running Hindi Pandit Training course as per the VCD submitted by the institution and the books in the library are not adequate, the lab is not fully equipped, for running the existing B.Ed. course and proposed HPT course, is illegal and arbitrary. The learned counsel for the petitioner to show that the grounds on which the orders of rejection are passed are untenable, submitted that in the appeal preferred by the petitioner before the 1st respondent as against the order of the 2nd respondent rejecting the application for grant of permission to start Hindi Pandit Training course, the petitioner, in the grounds of appeal, has specifically stated that the entire building’s plinth area is 3,000 Sq. mtrs., out of which 1,500 Sq. mtrs., is being used for the existing B.Ed. course and the remaining 1,500 Sq. mtrs., is earmarked for the proposed Hindi Pandit Training and Telugu Pandit Training courses, and that the said area is sufficient to run the Hindi Pandit Training course, and since by oversight, in the application, the plinth area was shown less, the petitioner filed an affidavit rectifying the typographical error. That the built up area of Amritha Akshitha College, Metpally, as per the plan approved and attested by the Commissioner, Wanaparthy Municipality, is 3,196 Sq. mtrs., the rooms are also big and spacious, as evident from the VCD and the inspection report of the Visiting Team, which inspected the premises. The Visiting Team, which inspected the premises, in its inspection report at para 17 had reported that the proposed building accommodation is sufficient for one proposed course in addition to the existing B.Ed. course, that the accommodation like class rooms, laboratories are suitable for one proposed course instead of two proposed courses in addition to the existing course. However, he contended that the 2nd respondent, ignoring all the above facts, has passed orders rejecting the application for grant of permission for running Hindi Pandit Training course, and the 1st respondent also without looking into the grounds of appeal, has mechanically dismissed the appeal confirming the order of rejection passed by the 2nd respondent, which is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, he prayed the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent, as confirmed by the 1st respondent in appeal, be set aside and the writ petition be allowed. The respondents filed detailed counter. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents reiterating the counter averments contended that the built up space and the building earmarked to run Hindi Pandit Training course is not sufficient, that in the appeal and during personal hearing, the petitioner submitted that the built up area of the 3,000 Sq. mtrs. is available for running B.Ed. and the proposed Hindi Pandit Training courses, and that out of 3,000 Sq. mtrs., 1,500 Sq. mtrs. was proposed for Hindi Pandit Training and Telugu Pandit Training courses, but since the petitioner is also running MBA and MCA courses in the same building, grant of permission for running Hindi Pandit Training course as per the provisions of NCTE Act and the Regulations is not permissible, and more particularly when the library and laboratory are not fully equipped, and the petitioner failed to cure the deficiencies despite providing opportunity. He further submitted that the petitioner has to submit certificate from the affiliating University concerned that no other courses are being run in the building. This apart, the number of books in the library and equipment in the psychology, ET and Science provided are sufficient. He thus justified the orders of rejection, passed by the 2nd respondent as confirmed by the 1st respondent in appeal and prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Though the respondents have made an attempt to justify the grounds of rejection of grant of permission to the petitioner to start Hindi Pandit Training course, the fact remains, in the counter filed by them, in para 4 they have stated that they having processed the application of the petitioner, issued deficiency letter, and that the petitioner submitted their reply, and they have re-examined the same, found that the deficiencies pointed out by the respondents, were found to be removed. When the petitioner has removed all the deficiencies, I fail to understand how the 2nd respondent pointing out the very same deficiencies, could have rejected the application of the petitioner for grant of permission to run Hindi Pandit Training course, and the 1st respondent could have confirmed the same. Though the respondents contend that the books in the library are not sufficient and that the laboratory is ill-equipped, it is the case of the petitioner that he has already purchased the required books and also equipped the laboratory and that though he produced proof in support of rectification of the defects, the respondents have not looked into the same. Further, the materials placed before the Court, would clearly show that it is not only the 2nd respondent, who failed to apply his mind to the facts of the case, but the 1st respondent has also without applying his mind to the facts of the case and the grounds of appeal, has confirmed the order of the 2nd respondent refusing to grant permission to the petitioner to run Hindi Pandit Training course. The fact that the respondents did not apply their mind to the facts of the case, can well be demonstrated from the material placed before the Court. The plan relating to the building, as approved and attested by the Commissioner, Wanaparthy Municipality, which is filed along with the writ petition shows that the built up area of the ground floor of the building is 3,196 Sq. mtrs. However, the 2nd respondent without taking this fact into consideration, proceeded to reject the application for grant of permission to the petitioner to run Hindi Pandit Training course, based on the entries made by the petitioner in his application (which showed the extent to be less), and upon coming to know of the typographical error, the petitioner rectified the same by filing an affidavit. Even though in the grounds of appeal, the petitioner has specifically stated that the entire building’s plinth area is 3,000 Sq. mtrs., out of which 1,500 Sq. mtrs. is being used for running the existing B.Ed. course and the remaining 1,500 Sq. mtrs., is allotted for the proposed Hindi Pandit Training and Telugu Pandit Training courses, and that the said area is sufficient to run the course. However, the 1st respondent without considering the stand taken by the petitioner in the grounds of appeal, and without taking into consideration the findings arrived at by the Visiting Team in its report, which reported that the proposed building accommodation is sufficient for one proposed course in addition to the existing B.Ed. course and that the accommodation, like class rooms and laboratories are suitable for one proposed course instead of two proposed courses in addition to the existing course, has confirmed the order of the 2nd respondent, refusing to grant permission to run Hindi Pandit Training course. These findings of the Visiting Team, as pointed out supra, clearly indicate that the area earmarked by the petitioner i.e. 3,000 Sq. mtrs. is sufficient for running the existing B.Ed. course, and one other course i.e. either Hindi Pandit Training or Telugu Pandit Training course. Though the respondents in the counter have taken a stated that since the petitioner is also running MBA and MCA course in the same building, the respondents refused permission, because the provisions of the NCTE Act and the Regulations made thereunder do not permit, running of courses other than those that fall under the NCTE Act, the fact remains, the petitioner has produced Certificate dated 04.09.2008 issued by Osmania University, which indicates that MBA and MCA courses are being run in a separate building, and that the Hindi Pandit Training course, which they want to start is a separate building. The said Certificate was issued by Osmania University, based on the report of the Inspection Committee, which inspected the premises of the petitioner, at the time of granting permission to run B.Ed. course. Since the impugned order of rejection, passed by the 2nd respondent, as confirmed by the 1st respondent in appeal, rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of permission to run Hindi Pandit Training course, is without considering the important and relevant material, the same cannot be sustained, and they are accordingly set aside, and the matter is remitted to the respondents for consideration of the matter afresh. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the application of the petitioner for grant of permission to run Hindi Pandit Training course afresh in the light of the materials placed before the Court, particularly the building plan and the inspection report of the Visiting Team, which inspected the premises of the petitioner, pursuant to the application for grant of permission, and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law expeditiously. No costs. _________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: June, 2009 MSV/KSR