IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2008 / 5TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 36421 of 2007(J) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- TTKM TEACHER TRAINING INSTITUTE, UNDER THE MANAGEMENT OF TTKM EDUCATIONAL TRUST, THEKKEKULAMBA, PARAPPURA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 503, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, MR.T.T.BEERABUNNY. BY ADV. SRI.ALIAS M.CHERIAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. THE NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION, WING-II, HANDS BHAVAN/1/ BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARK, NEW DELHI-110 002, REPRESENTED BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY, MR.MRITYUNJAY JHA. 2. THE NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION, SOUTHERN REGIONAL COMMITTEEE, IST FLOOR, CSD BUILDING, HMT POST, BANGALORE-560 031, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. R1 BY SRI.V.M.KURIAN, SC, SRC-NCTE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.36421/2007 J APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF ORDER NO.G.O.(MS) NO.426/02/G.EDN. DTD.28/12/2002. EXT.P2: COPY OF ORDER NO.F.K1/ELE/N/104/SRO/NCTE/2004-2005/ 6922 DTD. 6/09/2004. EXT.P3: COPY OF ORDER NO.69927/D3/2005/G.EDN. DTD. 3/3/2006. EXT.P4: COPY OF APPLICATION DTD. 26/12/2005. EXT.P5: COPY OF NOTICE NO.F.KL/SRO/NCTE/2007/5069 DTD.22/06/2007. EXT.P6: COPY OF REPRESENTATION DTD. NIL. EXT.P7: COPY OF ORDER NO.SRO/NCTE/REF/2007-2008/9233 DTD. 24/08/2007. EXT.P8: COPY OF APPEAL DTD. 12/10/2007. EXT.P9: COPY OF ORDER NO.F 89-301/207/APPEAL/74111 DTD.7/11/2007. EXT.P10: COPY OF PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE BUILDING. EXG.P11: COPY OF NOTIFICATION DTD. 30/11/2006. EXT.P12: COPY OF CERTIFICATE DTD. 3/12/2007. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 36421 of 2007 ------------------------------------- Dated: January 25, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is an existing Teachers' Training Institute. The institution has the recognition of NCTE. By Ext.P3 order an additional intake of 50 students was also allowed by the Government of Kerala. Thereafter the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 application to the NCTE to recognise the additional intake thus allowed by Ext.P3. It is stated that an inspection was conducted by a team deputed by the NCTE and the inspection team submitted Ext.P5 report pointing out certain inadequacies in the facilities provided by the petitioner. It is submitted by the petitioner that thereafter the inadequacies were rectified and the petitioner submitted Ext.P6 representation. Despite all these, by Ext.P7, Ext.P4 application made by the petitioner for recognition to the additional intake was rejected by the 2nd respondent. It is stated in Ext.P7 that the space earmarked is not adequate for additional intake and the size of various rooms are not as per the norms. WP(C) 36421/07 Page numbers Aggrieved by the rejection, petitioner submitted Ext.P8 appeal to the 1st respondent invoking the power under sec.18 of the NCTE Act. That appeal was also rejected by Ext.P9. It is challenging Exts.P7 and P9 that this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 2. When the writ petition was taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the inadequacy pointed out in Ext.P5 was rectified and that was conveyed to the 2nd respondent by Ext.P6. According to the learned counsel, it was ignoring this document that the application was rejected and the rejection was confirmed by the 1st respondent in Ext.P8. It is also pointed out that subsequently the norms were revised by the 1st respondent and the square feet area per student was fixed at 10. It is also pointed out that subsequently by Ext.P11 that was again revised and fixed at 1500 sq.ft. Counsel also submitted that still later in 2008, these norms have been revised further and is now prescribed as not less than 1000 sq. ft. It is contended that the petitioner's institute satisfies all these requirements and it was without considering these vital aspects that the appeal was rejected. 3. I have gone through Ext.P9 appellate order passed by the 1st WP(C) 36421/07 Page numbers respondent and I am constrained to hold that Ext.P9 reflects total non-application of mind by the authorities. A reading of Ext.P9 shows that the 1st respondent has not given any reason for overlooking the contentions of the petitioner and rejecting the appeal. Therefore Ext.P9 is bad in law and it has to be set aside. 4. Accordingly I quash Ext.P9 and direct that the 1st respondent shall reconsider Ext.P8 appeal with notice to the petitioner and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. In view of the factual aspects regarding the availability of space as contended by the petitioner, I also clarify that it will be open to the 1st respondent to consider that aspect as well and, if necessary, to get an inspection conducted and that the material so collected also will be considered while disposing the appeal. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-