.{1}. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1802 OF 2009 Royal Society of Bombay and 15 others. ..Petitioners. Versus State of Maharashtra and 5 others. ..Respondents. ... Mr.Yusuf Muchala, Senior Advocate with Shayan Mehta, Advocate i/b. M/s. Federal & Rashmikant for the petitioners. Mrs.M.P. Thakur, A.G.P., for respondent No.1-State. Mr.Uday P. Warunjikar, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr.Rodrigus, Advocate for respondent No.3. ... CORAM : BILAL NAZKI AND CORAM : BILAL NAZKI AND CORAM : BILAL NAZKI AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. DATED : 13TH APRIL, 2009. DATED : 13TH APRIL, 2009. DATED : 13TH APRIL, 2009. P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- 1. The petitioners wanted to establish an educational institution and in response to an advertisement issued by the University of Mumbai they applied for establishment of the College. The University recommended to the State Government to grant permission for establishment of the institution. After the University recommended establishment of the institution, the petitioner institution made an application to the State .{2}. Government and also to the N.C.T.E. on 27th December, 2007. The Western Regional Committee met at Bhopal at its 112th meeting and rejected the request of the petitioner institution and it took into consideration letter dated 21.11.2008 regarding recommendation of Government of Maharashtra not to grant recognition/permission for B.Ed course for the academic year 2009-2010. It appears from this letter that it is also not disputed that the request of the petitioner was rejected by NCTE mainly on the ground that the Government of Maharashtra had recommended not to grant any recognitions/permissions for B.Ed course for the academic year 2009-2010. But, it appears that after this letter, another letter was written on 3rd February, 2009 by Member Secretary of N.C.T.E. to the Regional Director to reconsider the issue on merits, even if the State, in which the institution intended to be established, had imposed a ban. Inspite of this letter by the Member Secretary of the N.C.T.E.,the regional committee has not reconsidered the issue and it is submitted in the counter affidavit that the regional committee did not have the power to review. We do not subscribe to that view. We feel that the matter raises a short .{3}. controversy as to whether the regional committee should have reconsidered the decision or not. The regional committee is only a offshoot of the main N.C.T.E. and the main N.C.T.E. having directed to reconsider the issue in the light of the letter of the Member Secretary of N.C.T.E.. For these reasons, we allow this Writ Petition and direct the regional committee to reconsider the issue in the light of the Member Secretary’s letter dated 3rd February, 2009 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with rules within a period of six weeks. 2. With the above direction, Writ Petition is disposed of. [BILAL NAZKI,J.] [BILAL NAZKI,J.] [BILAL NAZKI,J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]