THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14291 of 2010 Date:05.07.2010 Between: Sri Sai Balaji College of Education, Rep by its Secretary Dr.P.Someshwara Rao Torrur, Wangal District. ………..Petitioner. AND National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi., rep by its Member Secretary. ………Respondents. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14291 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner represented by its Secretary and Correspondent Dr.P.Someshwara Rao with a prayer to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of mandaus declaring the action of the National Council for Teacher Education (for short the ‘NCTE’), New Delhi in rejecting the appeal field by the petitioner in proceedings F.No.89- 1189/2009-Appeal/A 13668, dated 12-4-2010 confirming the order passed by the NCTE, Southern Regional Committee, Bangolore-2nd respondent vide proceedings No.F.SRPO/NCTE/Ref./2008-2009/5867, dated 6.10.2008 as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner college is established by Sri Venkateshwara Educational and Research Society. The said society is registered under the provisions of A.P. Societies Registration Act 2001. The main aim and object of the society is to encourage professional education, to provide education through efficient and effective methods of teaching at primary and higher education levels apart from other aspects. The society submitted an application on 29.12.2005 for grant of recognition to the petitioner’s college for B.ed., course of one year duration. The NCTE, Southern Regional Committee-2nd respondent, after considering the report of the visiting team as well as the relevant material, granted recognition for B.ed., course with a intake of 100 students from the Session 2007-2008 vide order No.9637 dated 18-12-2006. The petitioner college started B.ed., and completed academic years 2006-2007 & 2007-08 successfully with in take of 100 students. The Kakatiya University has recognized and notified the petitioner college for counseling for the academic year 2008-09. The A.P. State Council of Higher Education has allotted provisional allotment of students for the year 2008-09. The Kakatiya University sent communication to the 2nd respondent with regard to shabby accommodation. Thereupon, a show cause notice dated 28.5.2008 came to be issued by the 2nd respondent to the petitioner college on 14.6.2008. The petitioner college submitted explanation stating that the college has been running in its own premises. The 2nd respondent issued notice requiring the petitioner college to furnish all the documents in original to the members of the inspection board. However, the 2nd respondent issued proceedings dated 29.9.2008 withdrawing recognition of 14 colleges including the petitioner’s college with effect from the academic year 2008-09. Aggrieved by the proceedings dated 29.9.2008, the college filed W.P.No.22178 of 2008 and obtained interim suspension of the proceedings dated 29.9.2008. After filing of the said writ petition, the 2nd respondent issued proceedings dated 6.10.2008 informing the individual colleges including the petitioner’s college withdrawing the recognition. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed WPMP No.23374 of 2009 for amending the prayer and the same came to be allowed on 27.8.2009. The writ petition being W.P.No.22178 of 2009 came to be disposed of on 28.8.2009 granting liberty to the petitioner to file a statutory appeal under Section 18 of the NCTE Act 1993. Pursuant to the directions given by this Court, the petitioner college filed an appeal on 25.9.2009 against the order dated 6.10.2008 withdrawing the recognition. The NCTE-1st respondent entertained the appeal and rejected the appeal confirming the order dated 6.10.2008 passed by the 2nd respondent. Hence, this writ petition. When the writ petition came up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel for NCTE takes notices on behalf of the respondents. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner college submits that the petitioner filed certain documents as proof of compliance of deficiencies pointed out by the visiting committee, but the appellate authority has not taken in into consideration of those documents and proceeded to dispose of the appeal, and, therefore, the order impugned in the writ petition is liable to be quashed and the matter needs be remanded to the appellate authority for fresh consideration. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents supported the order impugned in the writ petition. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed on record various documents, which are said to have been presented before the appellate authority on 17.3.2010. The appellate authority has not adverted to the documents filed by way of additional material papers on 17.3.2010. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the appellate Authority –1st respondent is hereby set aside remanding the matter back to the 1st respondent for considering the appeal filed by the petitioner afresh and pass appropriate orders within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the wit petition is disposed of. No costs. _______________________________________ JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY Date:05.7.2010 mrb