IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1418 of 2009 1. S.M.ZAHEER ALAM TEACHERS TRAINING COLLEGE , BAHERA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY S.M.NAIYER IMAM S/O LATE S.M.ZAREEF R/OVILL BAHERA, P.S.BAHERA, DISTT- DARBHANGA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE DIRECTOR (RESEARCH AND TRAINING ) GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, VIKAS BHAWAN , PATNA 2. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION (NCTE) THROUGH ITS MEMBER SECRETARY HANS BHAWAN, WING-II 1, BAHADUR SAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI- 110002 3. THE MEMBER SECRETARY , NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION HANS BHAWAN, WING-II 1, BAHADUR SAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI- 110002 4. THE EASTERN REGIONAL COMMITTEE, NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION (ERC/NCTE), THROUGH ITS REGIONAL DIRECTOR 15, NEELKANTH NAGAR, NAYAPALLI , BHUBNESHWAR-751012 5. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, EASTERN , REGIONAL COMMITEE 15, NEELKANTH NAGAR, NAYAPALI, BHUBNESHWAR 751012 6. THE CHAIR PERSON/ MEMBER SECRETARY, EASTERN REGIONAL COMMITTEE NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION 15, NEELKANTH NAGAR, NAYAPALI, BHUBNESHWAR 751012 7. BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, PATNA ----------- 03 15.04.2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the N.C.T.E. The controversy in the present appeal is confined to the question if the sum of Rs. 40,000/- deposited by the appellant institution on 25.12.2005 for inspection to enhance intake capacity from 50 students to 150 students has lapsed on account of the application being premature in point of time or whether it is entitled to be adjusted against an inspection to be done by the respondents after fulfillment of the required academic Sessions being completed. 2 From the letter dated 18.2.2006 of the respondents, it is apparent that when the appellant made an application on 25.12.2005 for enhancement of such intake capacity and deposited a sum of Rs. 40,000/- for inspection, the respondents replied that the request for enhancement of intake capacity from the academic Session 2006-07 could not be accepted till completion of three academic Sessions of running the course, and that it may apply thereafter. If the appellant did not meet the requirement for enhancement of intake capacity and the respondents decided not to accept the application, any deposit of the processing fee of Rs. 40,000/- erroneously cannot be adjusted in any manner to demand fresh deposit for any repeat application made after three academic Sessions. If the application was not accepted as premature the processing fee should have been returned simultaneously. If the processing fee of Rs.40,000/- deposited with the request dated 25.12.2005 made by the appellant has not been returned till date, this Court directs the respondents to carry out the necessary inspection applicable from the Session 3 2010-12, when the appellant appears to fulfilling the three years limitation period of enhancement of intake capacity, and decide the same in accordance with law expeditiously so that the students desirous to apply for admission in the new academic session commencing from 2010 may not be prejudiced in any manner. Needless to add that if the processing fee of Rs.40,000/- as discussed has been refunded, the appellant is required to deposit the same afresh only whereafter fresh consideration may be done. The appeal stands disposed in the aforesaid terms. P.K. (Navin Sinha, J.) (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.)