IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3609 of 2009 Between: A.M. Reddy College of Education, Guntur. … Petitioner And National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi & others. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Aka Venkataramana Counsel for respondents 1&2: Smt. G. Jhansi for Sri B. Adinarayana Rao The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3609 of 2009 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside order dated 09.02.2009 in F.No.89-360/2008-Appeal passed by respondent No.1 confirming order dated 22.10.2008 of respondent No.2. I have heard Sri Aka Venkataramana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. G. Jhansi representing Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned Standing counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. The petitioner is an educational institution running a B.Ed., college. By proceedings dated 26.05.2007, it was granted recognition for conducting B.Ed., course with an intake of 100 students by respondent No.2. Following the said recognition, respondent No.3 has granted affiliation by his proceedings dated 08.08.2007. The petitioner was allotted students in the counseling session conducted for the year 2007-08 and the first batch of the students are stated to be passing out shortly. Respondent No.2 issued a notice under Section 17(1) of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (for short, “the Act”) for holding inspection on 22.04.2008. Accordingly, the inspection was conducted on the said date and thereafter show cause notice dated 25.08.2008 was issued, wherein the following deficiencies were indicated: “1. The earmarked built up space of 1112.17 sq. mts., not adequate. 2. The FDRs for Rs.5 lakhs and Rs.3 lakhs are not maintaining continuously by the management. 3. The management is running at Pharmacy College in the same building (ground floor and half of the 1st floor). No exclusive land and building available for B.Ed., course. As per regulations of NCTE, the institution has to provide exclusive land and building with adequate facilities. 4. The books and journals are not adequate facilities. 5. The space and facilities are not adequate in Science, Psychology and E.T. lab. 6. The management has to submit a certificate from the concerned affiliating university stating that no other college being run in the same building.” In response to the said show cause notice, the petitioner submitted its representation dated 29.09.2008. Not being satisfied with the said representation, respondent No.2 passed order dated 22.10.2008 withdrawing the recognition on the ground that the petitioner institution has violated the provisions of the Act and the regulations. The appeal filed by the petitioner having been dismissed by respondent No.1, it filed the present writ petition. In its order, respondent No.2 inter alia held that the documents submitted by the petitioner along with its application pertain to a sale deed, that the petitioner in its application stated that it will run the institution in permanent premises and that in reply to the show cause notice dated 25.08.2008 the petitioner gave an undertaking to the effect that it is ready to construct new building as per the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) norms within 12 months and that after construction, the B.Ed., college will be shifted to the new building. It is held that the petitioner has violated the said undertaking and that apart from not shifting the college to the permanent building, it is using the ground floor and half of the first floor exclusively for pharmacy course, which necessarily implies that the remaining part of the building is used for B.Ed., course. This order was confirmed by respondent No.1. At the hearing, it is argued by the learned counsel representing respondent No.1 that the main ground for cancelling the recognition is that the petitioner has repeatedly failed in its undertaking to shift the college to the permanent building. During one of the hearings, the learned counsel for the petitioner filed photographs of the new building and pleaded that the petitioner is prepared to shift the college to the newly constructed building in a short time. As no affidavit was filed in support of such a plea, the case was adjourned to enable the petitioner to file an affidavit. Accordingly, an affidavit has been filed by Smt. A. Santhi wife of Srinivasa Reddy, who is the Secretary and Correspondent of the petitioner institution. In paragraphs 6 and 7 of the said affidavit, it is stated as under: “I submit that as per the undertaking given on 01.10.2008 (Ex.P3) we have started construction of the new building and the same is now at final shape and it will be ready to occupy of by the end of October 2010. It is relevant to mention here that the total area of land is 2500 square meters and built up area is 1500 square meters consists of Principal Room-1, Staff Room-1, Class Room-2, Seminal Hall-1, Library Room- 1, E.T. Room-1, Psychology Lab-1, Physical Education Room-1 and bath rooms for gents and ladies which satisfied the norms and standards prescribed by the NCTE and the present building is exclusively meant for running the B.Ed., college only. I submit that counseling for B.Ed., course for the academic year 2010-2011 will be commenced from 02.08.2010 and the classes will be commenced in the 3rd week of October. We undertake that we will start the B.Ed., course in the new building and fulfill all the norms as stipulated under the rules and regulation.” The learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 stated that the impugned orders do not call for any interference because, on the admitted failure of the petitioner to shift the college to the new building, recognition has been withdrawn. In my opinion, though technically respondent Nos.1 and 2 are justified in withdrawing the recognition, however, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has come up with a new building, which is at the completion stage, as could be seen from the photographs and also the averments contained in the affidavit, referred to above, it would be appropriate in the interests of justice to give a final chance to the petitioner to prove its bona fides. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has undertaken that the new building will be completed in all respects by the first week of October 2010 and that the inspection team to be deputed by respondent No.2 can inspect the new building in the first week of October, 2010. Having considered these circumstances, the writ petition is allowed, subject to the following terms. 1. The impugned orders dated 09.02.2009 and 22.10.2008 of respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively are set aside. 2. The petitioner shall complete the new building with all facilities necessary for running the college by the first week of October, 2010. It shall pay the inspection and shifting fees to respondent No.2 within a period of four weeks from today. Respondent No.2 is entitled to depute an inspection team in the first week of October, 2010, by which time, the petitioner shall make the building ready for inspection. 3. On the basis of the repot to be submitted by the inspection team respondent No.2 shall take a fresh decision and pending the decision the petitioner college shall be included in the list of the colleges eligible for admission of the students for the academic year 2010-2011. If an adverse report is submitted by the inspection team, respondent No.2 shall be free to pass appropriate orders in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the regulations made thereunder. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.No.4703 of 2009 and WVMP.No.483 of 2010 are disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 02.08.2010. ES