IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO.22111 OF 2008 AND WRIT PETITION NO.11180 OF 2009 In WRIT PETITION NO : 22111 of 2008 Between: Torrur College of Education, Torrur Village & Mandal, Warangal District, rep. by its Secretary & Correspondent Mr.Ch.Raju 12-86, Torrur Village & Mandal, Warangal District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 National Council for Teacher Education, rep. by its Regional Director, 1st floor, CSD Building, HMT Post, Bangalore - 560 031. 2 Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary Education, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3 A.P. State Council of Higher Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 4 Kakatiya University, rep. by its Registrar, Warangal. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in removing the name of the petitioner from the website for the counseling for the year 2008-09 as illegal, null, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner to complete the academic year 2008-09 B.Ed course and to pass such other appropriate orders. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. K.DURGA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents : MR. B.ADINARAYANA RAO (SC FOR N.C.T.E) In WRIT PETITION NO : 11180 of 2009 Between: Torrur College of Education Torrur Village & Mandal, Warangal District, Rep. by its Secretary & Correspondent Mr. Ch. Raju, 12-86, Torrur Village & Mandal ..... PETITIONER AND 1 National Council for Teacher Education Rep. by its Regional Director, 1st Floor, CSD Building, HMT Post, Bangalore-560 031 2 Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Secretary Education, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3 A.P. State Council of Higher Education Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 4 Kakatiya Unviersity Rep. by its Registrar, Warangal. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in withdrawing recognition of the petitioner college vide impugned Proceeding F.SRO/NCTE/Ref/2008-09 /5864 dt. 6-10-2008 and consequential order of the 4th Respondent in NO. 170/3/CDC/KU/2009 dt. 8-5-2009 as illegal, null arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner to impart study in B.Ed course by allotting students to the petitioner college in EDCET 2009-10 admissions and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. K.DURGA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: MR. B.ADINARAYANA RAO (SC FOR N.C.T.E) The Court made the following common order : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO.22111 OF 2008 AND WRIT PETITION NO.11180 OF 2009 COMMON ORDER: Torrur College of Education, Torrur Village and Mandal is the petitioner in these two writ petitions. It is stated that the petitioner college was accorded permission by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) vide order dated 12.04.2007 to establish the College of Education with an intake of 100 students for the academic year 2007-08. Pursuant thereto, the affiliation was granted by the Kakatiya University and students were allotted to the petitioner college for the academic year 2007-08. For the academic year 2008-09 also, provisional allotment of students was made by the A.P. State Council of Higher Education and most of the students had joined the course. At that stage, the petitioner came to know that the petitioner’s recognition was withdrawn by the NCTE and the same was intimated to the State Government. It is not in dispute that a show-cause notice dated 28.5.2008 was issued by NCTE calling upon the petitioner to explain the shortcomings specified therein which included the failure of the petitioner to shift the institution to its own premises. The petitioner states that while submitting a detailed explanation the petitioner sought extension of time for shifting the colleges to its own premises. It is alleged that without considering the petitioner’s request the NCTE had withdrawn the petitioner’s recognition for the academic year 2008-09. Though the said order was not communicated to the petitioner, it was intimated to the Principal Secretary to Government by letter dated 29.09.2008 stating that the Southern Regional Committee of NCTE in its 164th and 165th meetings held on 20.09.2008 and 27/28.9.2008 decided to withdraw the recognition to the petitioner intuitions from the academic year 2008-09. The said action has been challenged in W.P.No.22111 of 2008 contending inter alia that the withdrawal of recognition ordered by NCTE was in violation of the procedure laid down in Section 17 (1) of the NCTE Act, 1993 since the petitioner intuition was not put on notice or given an opportunity to make a representation against the impugned action of withdrawal of recognition. It is also contended that since absolutely no reasons were recorded, the impugned order dated 29.09.2008 was in violation of the first proviso to Section 17 (1) of the NCTE Act, 1993. It is also contended by the petitioner that the withdrawal of the recognition from the academic year 2008-09 is contrary to Section 17 (1) of the NCTE Act, 1993 which mandates that an order withdrawing the recognition would come into effect only from the end of the academic session next following the date of communication of such order. Having found that a prima facie case was made out, this Court while issuing rule nisi, by order dated 6.10.2008 granted interim direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to complete the academic year 2008-09 with the students allotted upto the strength of 100. Accordingly, the academic year 2008-09 was completed. While so, by order dated 6.10.2008 the NCTE has withdrawn the recognition of the petitioner college holding that as per the report received from the visiting team the petitioner institution was not ready for inspection on 16.09.2008 and having considered the said report, the Southern Regional Committee in its 165th meeting held on 27/28.09.2008 decided to withdraw the recognition from the academic session 2008-09 on the grounds specified therein. Pursuant thereto, the Kakatiya University, Warangal, dated 8.5.2009 informed the petitioner that it is not possible to extend the affiliation for the year 2009-10. Challenging the said order dated 6.10.2008 of the NCTE as well as the consequential order of the University dated 8.5.2009, the petitioner filed W.P.No.11180 of 2009. It is alleged by the petitioner that no inspection was conducted by the visiting team and the alleged report of the visiting team was never communicated to the petitioner. It is further contended that since the alleged deficiencies on the basis of which the recognition is withdrawn are factually incorrect and without any basis, the impugned action is arbitrary and illegal. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of NCTE, it is contended that in view of the alternative remedy of appeal available under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993, the writ petition cannot be maintained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. On merits, it is contended that a show- cause notice was issued to the petitioner pointing out the deficiencies and the explanation submitted by the petitioner was considered by the Southern Regional Committee and thereafter notice was issued for inspection by the visiting team. However, the petitioner intuition was not ready for inspection and the inspection team was not allowed to conduct inspection and therefore the Southern Regional Committee had rightly taken a decision to withdraw the recognition. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record. The contentions in W.P.No.22111 of 2008 that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to make its representation against the proposed action and that the NCTE while withdrawing the recognition had failed to satisfy the mandatory requirement of assigning the reasons under the first proviso to Section 17 (1) of the NCTE Act, 1993 are apparently unfounded since the order dated 29.09.2008 which was challenged in the said writ petition was only a communication to the Government furnishing the list of institutions in respect of which the recognition was withdrawn. Subsequently, the petitioner was served with a detailed order dated 6.10.2008 assigning reasons for the withdrawal which is assailed in W.P.No.11180 of 2009. It is clear from the material on record that recognition was granted to the petitioner institution subject to fulfillment of certain conditions and that the petitioner was issued notice informing the alleged deficiencies. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was informed the date of inspection by the visiting team. In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 6.10.2008 cannot be held to be in violation of the principles of natural justice. However, it is urged on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order dated 6.10.2008 is unwarranted since the conclusions arrived at with regard to the alleged violations are erroneous. It is also specifically pleaded by the petitioner that there was no inspection at all and therefore there was no opportunity to the petitioner to establish that all the conditions subject to which the recognition was granted were satisfied. Thus it is contended that the impugned withdrawal of recognition based upon non-existing grounds is arbitrary, illegal and unjustified. It is to be noticed that the issue whether the petitioner has fulfilled the conditions required for continuation of recognition or not requires a detailed enquiry into various disputed questions of fact which cannot be undertaken by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the correctness of the findings recorded by the NCTE in the impugned order can only be examined and decided by the appellate authority which is a final authority of fact finding. Since Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993, provides for such Appeal, the petitioner ought to have availed the said remedy before the Appellate Authority. Accordingly, these writ petitions are disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to file statutory appeal under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the order of the NCTE dated 6.10.2008, if not already filed, within a period of four weeks from today. If any such appeal is preferred, the appellate authority shall receive treating the same as an appeal filed within limitation and dispose of in accordance with law after hearing both the parties. Till such time, status quo obtaining as on today in all respects shall be maintained. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI,J. Dt. 11.08.2009 Note- CC in 3 days. (B/O) gbs