HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1623 (MS) of 2009 Beehive College of Advance Studies And another. ...Petitioners. Versus H.N.B. Garhwal University, Srinagar And three others. …Respondents Mr. D. Barthwal and Ms. Mamta Joshi, Advocates for the petitioners. Mr. J.P. Joshi, Advocate has accepted notice on behalf of respondent nos.1 & 2. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State /respondent no. 3 Ms. Sangeeta Miyan, holding brief of Mr. Sudhir Singh, Advocate for respondent no. 4. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner Institution for quashing the decision/order passed by the Northern Regional Committee of National Council for Teachers’ Education in its 146th meeting, held between 5th to 7th August, 2009 at serial no. 13, agenda no. 7 (annexed as annexure no. 10 to the petition) so far it relates to the petitioner institution. The respondent no.1 in its meeting withdrew recognition of the petitioner institution. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1, 2 & 4 raised preliminary objection about maintainability of writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy u/s 18 (1) of the NCTE Act, 1993. Normally this Court does not entertain the writ petition where alternative remedy is available but seeing the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and also seeing the interest of the students, this Court is inclined to entertain the writ petition. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted before the Court that the petitioner institution replied the show cause notice on 22.07.2009 and in support of their reply several documents were also annexed but ignoring the reply, the NCTE has passed the order impugned order by which recognition of petitioner institution has been 2 withdrawn. He further submitted that the respondent- NCTE should have considered the case independently on its own merit. He argued that impugned order is absolutely silent about the contravention of the provision of the Act by the petitioner institution and as such no order, withdrawing the recognition, could have been passed against the petitioner institution under Section 17 of NCTE Act, 1993. He further submitted that on 17.06.2009 the visiting team of NCTE inspected petitioner institution but just after two months i.e. on 07.08.2009 the NCTE withdrew recognition of the petitioner institution on the ground of some deficiencies, which is unreasonable and illegal. Deficiencies, if existed, could have been removed within very short span of time. Prima facie, this Court is satisfied with the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner. Admit the petition. It is directed that till next date of listing the decision taken by the respondent no.4 in its meeting dated 5th to 7th August, 2009 in respect of petitioner institution shall not be given effect to. List this petition in the week commencing 5th October, 2009 alongwith Writ Petition no. 1403/2009 (M/S). In the meantime the respondents may file counter affidavit. (V.K. Bist, J.) 22.09.2009 NCM: