$-3 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA 346/2011 SHREE SITESHWARAR EDUCATIONAL TRUST Appellant Through Mr. S. Nanda Kumar, Mr. Satish Kumar, Ms. Seema Shukla and Mr. Vinay Sharma, Advocates versus NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Respondent Through Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA ORDER % 02.05.2011 Heard Mr. S. Nanda Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Advocate for the respondent. In this intra-Court appeal the challenge is to the order passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) 128/2011 whereby he has opined that when the ban is issued by National Council of Teachers Education for academic session 2011-2012 no order can be passed for grant of recognition and hence, there is no justification or warrant to ask the appellant to approach the Committee under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993. This Court in LPA No. 743/2010 has held thus: Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified "15. In this context our attention has also been drawn to the decision in National Council for Teachers Education and Another v. Committee of Management, 2006 III AD (S.C.) 65. In the said case the Apex Court was dealing with non-filing of essential documents by the institution and the rejection of recognition by the NCTE. Their Lordships referred to Section 14, Section 32 and the Regulations framed under Section 32 as regard being had to the duty cast on the NCTE and the requisite infrastructural facilities for imparting education to the teachers. Their Lordships have held thus: "15. Regulations could be framed by the appellant under Sub-section (1) of Section 32 read with Section 14 thereof Section 14, as noticed hereinbefore, itself provides that the applications are required to be filed in such form and in such a manner as was determined by the Regulations. The Regulations could have thus also been framed in terms of Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act. We have, however, noticed hereinbefore that Clause (e) of Sub-section (2) of Section 32 specifically refers to Section 14 of the Act for the purpose of laying down the form and manner in which the applications for recognition are required to be submitted. The High Court was, therefore, entirely wrong in arriving at the conclusion that the Council had no such power. The Regulations, having been validly framed, indisputably, were required to be complied with. The Council has a statutory duty to perform. It is an autonomous body. Its jurisdiction extend to the entire territory of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir and in that view of the matter, it is indisputably required to process a large number of applications received by it from various institutions situate throughout the country. Six month"s time, in view of the statutory scheme, is necessary for processing the papers, inspection of the institution and to take a decision on the basis of report submitted pursuant thereto as to whether the institution in question, having regard to Entry 66 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India, has the requisite infrastructural facilities for imparting education to the teachers." 16. For the afore-mentioned purpose, it is not necessary for us to determine the question as to whether the provisions of the Regulations are imperative in character or not. There cannot, however, be any doubt or dispute that even if they are directory in nature, substantial compliance thereof was necessary. It is no ground that such an application could not be filed by the first respondent before 31st December, 2004 as it received the NOC issued by the State Government. In view of the provisions of the Act and the Regulations, it was obligatory on the part of the first respondent to file an application, which was complete in all respects. It does not lie in the mouth of the applicant to state that despite requirements of law it would not comply with the same. It is not a case where the requirements were not capable of being complied with. The first respondent was required to show that it has a legal and valid title in respect of the land on which the building in question was required to be constructed. It was also required to furnish the copy of the building plan approved by the competent authority. We have noticed hereinbefore that the application form itself provides for as to what infrastructural facilities are necessary for running the institution. The infrastructural facilities required to be provided must be commensurate with the requirements stated in the said form itself One of them is to state the number of different rooms and their respective sizes thereof available in the proposed institution. So far as the title over the land in question is concerned, it was stated by the respondent that the land is available in the name of institution on a long-term basis. It is not disputed that copy of the registered Deed of Lease was furnished for the first time by the first respondent on 9.6.2005. Similarly, complete information as to whether the building plan had been sanctioned or not was furnished only on the said date. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained." 16. From the aforesaid enunciation of law, it is manifest that substantial compliance has to be done. We are not inclined to enter into the realm of substantial compliance as there has been a change of scenario. The NCTE has framed 2009 Regulations. Regulation 8(7) of 2009 Regulations reads as follows: "(i) No institution shall be granted recognition under these Regulations unless the institution or society sponsoring the institution 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 fi-om Govermnent or Government institutions for a period of not less than 30 year. In cases where under relevant State or Union Territory laws the maximum permissible lease period is less than 30 years, the State Government or. Union Territory Administration law shall prevail. However, no building shall be taken on lease for running and teacher training course. (ii) The society sponsoring the institution shall have to ensure that proposed teacher education institution has a well demarcated land area as specified by the norms. The teacher education institution shall not be allowed to have any other institution within its demarcated area or building and shall not have any other course(s) in its building. (iii) The physical education institution shall similarly be required to have a separate demarcated area or building and shall not house any other course including other teacher education courses. (iv) The society sponsoring the institution shall be required to transfer and vest the title of the land and building in the name of the institution within a period of six months from the date of issue of formal recognition order under sub-regulation (11) of Regulation 7. However, in case, the society fails to do so due to local laws or rules or bye-laws, it shall intimate in writing with documentary evidence, of its inability to do so. The Regional Office shall keep this information on record and place it before the Regional Committee for its approval." 17. A stand has also been taken that there has been a ban regarding acceptance of application for recognition of teacher training courses for the academic session 2011-12 in various States for specific courses and so far as State of Haryana is concerned, there is a ban on D.El.Ed, B.Ed., D.P. Ed. and B.P.Ed. Even if the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent is accepted, it is difficult to put the clock back and say that the application should be considered in accordance with 2007 Regulations and application should be processed. The application can alone be processed after the ban is lifted or for that matter for 2012-13, depending upon the change of policy. 18. In view of the aforesaid, there is no necessity to address with regard to the nature and character of the Regulations and the compliance thereof Therefore, we are only inclined to direct that the application which has been brought in order after compliance of the condition provided under Regulation 8(7) the same shall be processed in accordance with law for grant of recognition as stipulated under Section 14 of the Act after the ban is lifted and there is a change in the policy decision. As far as other courses are concerned where ban is not there the application shall be considered for the academic session 2011-12. 19. In LPA No.833/2010 the prayer has been for grant of recognition for imparting education in M.Ed course. As we perceive, there is no ban on consideration for the 2011-12 in the State of Punjab and Haryana. Therefore, the application filed may be considered in accordance with 2009 Regulations for the academic session 2011- 12." 0 In view of the aforesaid, we do not fmd any error in the order passed by learned Single Judge and accordingly the appeal stands dismissed without any order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE _J/c, SANJIV KHANNA, J. MAY 02, 2011/vld