IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2010 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 30869 of 2010(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- VISWADARSHINI COLLEGE OF EDUCATION, UNDER THE VISWADARSINI CHARITABLE SOCIETY URIYACODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY C.RAJAGOPALAN ACHARI. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM SRI.SUJITH MATHEW JOSE RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION (NCTE), NEW DELHI, HANS BHAVAN, WING II, 1, BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI-110 002, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, SOUTHERN REGIONAL COMMITTEE (NCTE) C/O.HMT LTD., 1ST FLOOR, CSD BUILDING JALAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 031. SRI.V.M.KURIAN, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 30869 OF 2010 (G) ===================== Dated this the 27th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T In the writ petition, the challenge is against Ext.P13 appellate order passed by the 1st respondent. 2. Petitioner submitted an application for the grant of a recognition for a B.Ed College. That application was made to the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent rejected the application and that order of rejection was challenged in WP(C) No.12971/09. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P8 judgment directing that if the petitioner resubmits his application pursuant to Ext.P7 mentioned therein, the application will be processed and orders will be passed. Although Ext.P8 judgment was challenged in WA No.2137/09, a Division Bench of this Court by Ext.P9 judgment declined to interfere with the directions in Ext.P8. 3. Accordingly, the matter was reprocessed and again the application of the petitioner was rejected by Ext.P10 order. Against Ext.P10 order, petitioner filed Ext.P11 appeal. Ext.P11 appeal is now rejected by Ext.P13. The reason stated in Ext.P13 for rejection of the application reads as follows:- WPC No. 30869/10 :2 : AND WHEREAS the Council noted that an inspection team visited this institution on 17.4.2010 in particular recorded that the whole building is earmarked for the proposed course and Teacher Training Institute is run separately. However the Council noted that the appellant has produced copies of two building completion certificates, which contradict each other. Whereas one certificate dt.20.07.2009 enclosed to the application indicates the total built up area as 1272.3 sq.mts. another also dt.20.07.2009 enclosed to the appeal indicates the total built up area as 1534.76 sq. mts, even though the actual figures total up to only to 1470.41 sq.mts, which means that the 'total' figure is tampered. The total built up area in these certificates is less than the area required as per NCTE norms i.e. 1500 sq.mts. 4. The case of the petitioner is that when the appeal was posted, not only that they were not asked any clarification in the matter, but also that the conclusion in Ext.P13 can be seen to be incorrect from Ext.P14 building completion certificate subsequently obtained by the petitioner from the Assistant Engineer of PWD Building Section. On this basis, petitioner seeks a direction for reconsideration of Ext.P11 appeal. 5. Although a reading of Ext.P13 shows that the conclusions therein have been arrived at by the 1st respondent on the materials produced by the petitioner himself, fact remains that the petitioner has an explanation about the conclusions in Ext.P13. It is in this context that the complaint of the petitioner WPC No. 30869/10 :3 : that no clarification was sought from them during the course of hearing assumes importance. That apart, if Ext.P14 certificate is also made available and perused by the 1st respondent, the conclusion in Ext.P13 would have been different. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to think that the matter needs reconsideration. 6. Accordingly, I quash Ext.P13 and direct that the 1st respondent shall reconsider Ext.P11 appeal with notice to the petitioner. It is clarified that it will be open to the petitioner to produce Ext.P14 certificate also before the 1st respondent when the matter is reconsidered. Orders shall be passed at any rate with notice to the petitioner and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 8 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp