IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1430 of 2011 S.M.SHOIB HASHMI EDUCATIONAL AND WELFARE TRUST, PLOT NO. 204, PATHANPATTI ROAD AT PATHAN PATTI (CHOWA DANO) P.O. NARKATIYA BAZAR, DARPA, MOTIHARI THROUGH ITS SECRETARY Versus 1. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. 2. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHERS EDUCATION THROUGH ITS MEMBER SECRETARY, NEW DELHI. 3. VICE CHAIRPERSON, NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHERS EDUCATION, NEW DELHI. 4. EASTERN REGIONAL COMMITTEE, NATIONAL EDUCATION FOR TEACHERS EDUCATION, 15 NILKANTH NAGAR, NAYA PATTI, BHUBANESHWAR 5. REGIONAL DIRECTOR, EASTERN REGIONAL COMMITTEE, NATIONAL EDUCATIN FOR TEACHERS EDUCATION. ----------- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Narendra Kumar Jha. For the N.C.T.E. :- Mr. S. N. Pathak, S.C.C.G. ----- 3 21/06/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the National Council for Teachers Education. Court has gone through the initial objection letter/ deficiency pointed out in the letter dated 21.12.2009 which is annexure-1 to the writ application and the appropriate response of the petitioner. In the final order of rejection, no doubt, there is long list of reasons why permission or recognition has been rejected - 2 - but majority of such objections are hyper technical in nature and could have been taken care of provided the petitioner could have been given suitable indulgence and time in this regard. Since the basic grounding is already there, given in the order of rejection, the Appellate Authority seems to have been more impressed by such findings rather than looking at the issue in a holistic manner. It is not to suggest that what is required to be done by an Institution in terms of the Act is to be ignored but the respondents authorities have also a duty to see that an Institution which is serious in setting up facilities which meet the standards in terms of the Act, are not unnecessarily harassed by taking a hyper technical view or objections, as seems to have been done in the present case atleast with regard to some of the objections. In the totality, therefore, petitioner is permitted to approach respondent no. 4, the Eastern Regional Committee of National Education for Teachers Education with the details of deficiencies already taken care of and the requirements as such and thereafter the authorities must look into the matter and take a fresh - 3 - decision preferably within a period of six months from the date of filing of such application, if not earlier. This writ application is disposed of with the observation aforesaid that the respondents will take a holistic view of the matter. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)