THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO.22178 OF 2008 Date: 28.08.2009 Between: Sri Venkateswara Educational and Researh Society, Railway Colony, Hyderabad, Rep., by its General Secretary. Dr. P.Someswara Rao … Petitioner And National Council for Teacher Education, Rep., by its Regional Director, Banglore and 3 others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO.22178 OF 2008 ORDER: The petitioner herein is a society registered under the A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001. It has established a College of Education under the name and style of Sri Balaji College of Education at Torrur, Warangal District pursuant to the permission dated 12.04.2007 granted by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE). The B.Ed. course was conducted for the academic years 2006-07 and 2007-08 successfully with an intake of 100 students. For the academic year 2008-09 also, provisional allotment of students was made by the respondents 3 and 4 herein and most of the students had joined the course. At that stage, the petitioner came to know that the petitioner’s recognition was withdrawn by the NCTE and the same was intimated to the State Government. It is not in dispute that a show-cause notice dated 28.5.2008 was issued by NCTE calling upon the petitioner to explain the shortcomings specified therein which included the failure of the petitioner to shift the institution to its own premises. In response to the same, the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation. It is alleged that without considering the petitioner’s explanation the NCTE had withdrawn the petitioner’s recognition for the academic year 2008-09. Though the said order was not communicated to the petitioner, it was intimated to the Principal Secretary to Government by letter dated 29.09.2008 stating that the Southern Regional Committee of NCTE in its 164th and 165th meetings held on 20.09.2008 and 27/28.9.2008 decided to withdraw the recognition to the petitioner intuition from the academic year 2008- 09. The said action has been challenged in this writ petition contending inter alia that the withdrawal of recognition ordered by NCTE was in violation of the procedure laid down in Section 17 (1) of the NCTE Act, 1993 since the petitioner intuition was not put on notice or given an opportunity to make a representation against the impugned action of withdrawal of recognition. It is also contended that since absolutely no reasons were recorded, the impugned order dated 29.09.2008 was in violation of the first proviso to Section 17 (1) of the NCTE Act, 1993. It is also contended by the petitioner that the withdrawal of the recognition from the academic year 2008-09 is contrary to Section 17 (1) of the NCTE Act, 1993 which mandates that an order withdrawing the recognition would come into effect only from the end of the academic session next following the date of communication of such order. Having found that a prima facie case was made out, this Court while issuing rule nisi, by order dated 6.10.2008 granted interim direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to complete the academic year 2008-09 with the students allotted upto the strength of 100. Accordingly, the academic year 2008-09 was completed. Though no counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents, it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the NCTE that the order dated 29.09.2008 was only a communication to the Government furnishing the list of institutions in respect of which the recognition was withdrawn and that subsequently separate speaking orders were passed in respect of each institution assigning reasons. The fact that such an order was passed on 06.10.2008 by the NCTE in respect of the petitioner-institution has not been disputed by the petitioner. Having regard to the said fact, the petitioner got the prayer in this writ petition amended seeking a further declaration that the said order dated 06.10.2008 is arbitrary and illegal contending inter alia that the withdrawal of the recognition to the petitioner institution is unwarranted since all the conditions subject to which the recognition was granted have been satisfied by the petitioner. It is to be noticed that the issue whether the petitioner has fulfilled the conditions required for continuation of recognition or not requires a detailed enquiry into various disputed questions of fact which cannot be undertaken by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the correctness of the findings recorded by the NCTE while withdrawing the recognition can only be examined and decided by the appellate authority which is a final authority of fact finding. Since Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993, provides for such Appeal, the petitioner ought to have availed the said remedy before the Appellate Authority. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to file a statutory appeal under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the order of withdrawal of recognition, if not already filed, within a period of four weeks from today. If any such appeal is preferred, the appellate authority shall receive treating the same as an appeal filed within limitation and dispose of in accordance with law after hearing both the parties. Till such time, status quo obtaining as on today in all respects shall be maintained. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI,J. Date: 28.08.2009 Note: Issue C.C. in two days. B/o gbs