1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10341 of 2010 Shri Vasantrao Banduji Patil Trust’s Appasaheb Birnale Junior College of Education ...Petitioners Versus The Regional Director, National Council for Teachers Education ...Respondents Mr. Girish Kulkarni a/w. Sandeep Waghmare for Petitioners. Mr. Uday Warunjikar for the Respondents. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR & R.Y.GANOO, JJ. DATED:- 24th JUNE, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. Rule. 2. Mr. Warunjikar waives notice for the respondent. Short question is involved. Petition taken up for final disposal today, by consent. 2 3. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the decision of the respondent dated 1st May, 2009 and praying for direction against the respondent to forthwith grant permission/approval for establishment of D. Ed. College (English Medium) to be named as Appasaheb Birnale Junior College of Education at Shinde Mala, Near Railway Station, Kupwad Road, Sangli from the academic year 2010-2011. 4. The petitioner had applied for approval as was required in terms of National Counsel for Teachers Education (NCTE) Act, 1993 and the regulations of 2007 framed thereunder. According to the petitioner, the said request came to be rejected, primarily on the ground that the State Government has sent negative report for establishment of such new D.Ed. College. According to the petitioner, it is now well established position that, negative report of the State Government cannot be the basis to reject the request for approval to start new D.Ed. College. The respondent has to consider the proposal on its own merits, keeping in mind the relevant parameters prescribed under the Act and the Regulations framed thereunder. This position is no more res integtra. This Court, in the case of Mahatma Shikshan 3 Sanstha v. National Council for Teachers Education and Others has already answered the issue against the respondent vide decision dated 23rd February, 2010 in Writ Petition No.1283 of 2010. 5. The respondent contested this petition. At the time of hearing, the Counsel for the respondent contended that the refusal to grant approval to the petitioner institution was not limited to the negative recommendations made by the State Government, but on other germane matters considered by the Authority as referred to in the impugned communication itself. 6. In the light of this submission, we called upon the respondent to produce the relevant material that was considered by the Appropriate Authority while examining the proposal of the petitioner. It transpires that the Appellate Authority based its decision noted in the impugned communication dated 29th April, 2009 / 1st May 2009 in the context of the communications dated 17th September, 2008, 1st October 2008 and 31st October, 2008 received from Member Secretary, NCTE, New Delhi. The Counsel for the respondent had to accept that besides these three documents no other material was 4 taken into account by the respondent before taking the final decision as recorded in the impugned order. We, therefore, carefully perused the three communications produced before us. Insofar as the communication dated 1st October, 2008 is concerned, that is sent by the Member Secretary to the Regional Director ascertaining Regional Committee, NCTE, which refers to the negative report given by the State Government. Similarly, the communication dated 31st October, 2008 which is sent by the Member Secretary to the Regional Director, Northern Regional Committee and others also refers to the negative recommendations made by the State Government. That, as has been held in the decision of this Court in Mahatma Shikshan Sanstha (supra), can be no basis to reject the proposal submitted by the institution. The only other material which weighed with the Appropriate Authority in refusing to grant approval to the petitioner is communication dated 17th November, 2008 which is also sent by the Member Secretary of NCTE to the Regional Director, Western Regional Committee. This, however, refers to the fact that some cases are pending for several months and which need to be disposed of expeditiously. We fail to understand as to how this communication can be the basis to consider the proposal for granting 5 approval to the institution which has submitted application for permission to start new D.Ed. College. Suffice to observe that, it is not possible to sustain the impugned decision which is otherwise founded only on the negative recommendation made by the State Government. Understood thus, the impugned decision will have to be set aside and instead the respondent will have to be directed to reconsider the proposal of the petitioner institution on its own merits, in accordance with law. That will have to be done as expeditiously as possible and preferably by 15th August, 2011, so that if the petitioner is entitled for permission, would be able to start the college w.e.f atleast end of August 2011, which will be for academic year 2011-2012 onwards. 7. Petition disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. (R.Y.GANOO, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)