THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15371, 15372 and 15373 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: The petitioners are Colleges of Education. The approval of the National Council for Teacher Education, respondent No.1 herein, is necessary for establishment of a College of Education. One of the conditions to be complied with by an applicant is that Fixed Deposit Receipts for Rs.5,00,000/- towards endowment fund and Rs.3,00,000/- towards reserve fund must be deposited with the Council by each applicant. The petitioners furnished F.D.Rs. along with their applications and approvals were accorded. In the course of subsequent verification, it emerged that the F.D.Rs. submitted by the petitioners were not genuine. Show cause notices were issued to the petitioners requiring them to explain as to why the approval be not withdrawn. The petitioners submitted explanation stating that the purchase of F.D.Rs. were entrusted to certain officials and by misappropriating the said amounts, fake F.D.Rs. appear to have been furnished. Realizing their mistake, the petitioners have furnished fresh F.D.Rs. for the corresponding amounts. The Council passed orders withdrawing the approval accorded to the petitioners. The orders of withdrawal were upheld by the appellate authority. Hence, these writ petitions. The petitioners contend that they have been deceived by an employee in the matter of securing F.D.Rs. and that the said person is absconding ever since then. They submit that the interest of the Council was to ensure that the funds mentioned above are kept intact to meet the unforeseen eventualities and once the genuine F.D.Rs. are furnished, defect stands cured. They submit that the institutions were established strictly in accordance with the norms and on account of the withdrawal of the approval, the students and the management suffer loss. On behalf of the Council, a detailed counter-affidavit is filed. It is stated that the condition, imposed while according approval, provides for withdrawal of the approval in case any fraud is noticed. It is stated that the prescribed procedure was followed and the impugned orders do not warrant interference. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the Council. It is no doubt true that the F.D.Rs. furnished by the petitioners were found to be not genuine. No other violation on the part of the petitioners is pointed out. The F.D.Rs. are to be kept with the Council to meet the unforeseen developments in case the institutions are stopped abruptly. The petitioners appear to have not taken proper care while furnishing the F.D.Rs. Once the genuine F.D.Rs. are furnished along with the explanation, the Council ought to have taken a pragmatic view, duly imposing penalty, if any, upon the petitioners. Apart from the interests of the petitioners, the career of students is also involved. Further, the existence of the institution at a particular place would ensure proper training to the persons in the locality. This Court is of the view that ends of justice would be met, if penalty of Rs.50,000/- each is levied upon the petitioners for restoration of the approval. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the orders passed by the Council withdrawing the approval are set aside, on condition that the petitioners shall pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each towards penalty to the Council, within four weeks from today. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:08.03.2011. kdl