IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.1 of 2010 (M/S) Lal Bahudur Shastri Technical Education Institute ………..Petitioner Versus Regional Director N.C.T.E. & others …….Respondents Shri Vipul Sharma and Shri Ravi Babulkar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri N.P. Shah, learned Standing Counsel for the State. Shri Sudhir Singh for the respondent nos.1 & 2. Dated: 08th July, 2010 Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 09.09.2009 passed by respondent no.1 and order dated 26.11.2009 passed by respondent no.2. Further prayer has been made in the writ petition for direction to the respondent not to interfere in the running of the B.Ed. Course by the petitioner institute for further sessions. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner institute was granted recognition vide order dated 14.11.2006 by the Northern Regional Committee of NCTE Delhi (hereinafter referred as to the NRC) to run B.Ed classes for the session 2006-07. In pursuance of the recognition order dated 14.11.2006 the petitioner institute admitted students in B.Ed classes. All of a sudden, vide order dated 09.09.2009 the NRC i.e. respondent no.1 passed a refusal order by which the respondent no.1 communicated its decision of refusal 2 of recognition for B.Ed. Course to the petitioner institution. The petitioner institution filed an appeal before the National Council For Teacher Education (NCTE) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 (for short the Act). The said appeal of the petitioner was also rejected on 26.11.2009 by the Appellate Authority in which the order of refusal was modified directing the NRC to revise the order of refusal into an order of withdrawal to be effected from the academic session 2010-11. The main ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent authorities have violated the provision of Section 17 (1) of the Act which provides that no order shall be passed against the recognized institution unless a reasonable opportunity of making representation against the proposed order has been given to such recognized institution. Section 17 (1) of the Act, is being quoted below: “17. Contravention of provisions of the Act and consequences thereof.- (1) Where the Regional Committee is, on its own motion or on any representation received from any person, satisfied that a recognised institution has contravened any of the provisions of this Act, or the rules, regulations, orders made or issued thereunder, or any condition subject to which recognition under sub- section (3) of Section 14 or permission under sub-section (3) of Section 15 was granted, it may withdraw recognition of such recognised institution, for reasons to be recorded in writing: Provided that no such order against the recognised institution shall be passed unless a reasonable opportunity of making representation against the proposed order has been given to such recognised institution: Provided further that the order withdrawing or refusing recognition passed by the Regional Committee shall come into force only with effect from the end of the academic session next following the date of communication of such order.” Learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the letters written by the petitioner to the NRC, in which NRC was informed about the action taken by the institution from time to time. He also referred to the copy of the courier receipts and stated that, infact, all these documents were sent to the NRC and there was no reason for the respondent appellate authority to highlight in its order that record do not contain such documents. These letters were also sent in time and were forwarded through Registrar of the Kumaon University. He further submitted that the faculty members are appointed by the expert Committee of the University and, infact, they were appointed after due approval of the Selection Committee constituted by the University. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents Shri Sudhir Singh submitted that conditional recognition cannot and does not mean that it is absolute as the same is subject to fulfillment of certain conditions. It is discernible from the order dated 14.11.2006 that the recognition was inconclusive as it was subject to fulfillment of certain conditions. He further submitted that the records of the NRC do not contain any communication from the appellant 4 institution after the issuance of a conditional recognition. Thus it appears that all papers were submitted by the petitioner institute before the NCTE. Since only ground for refusal/withdrawal recognition is that required papers were not sent by the petitioner institute in time, meaning thereby that the petitioner institute has not fulfilled one of the conditions, such deficiency was required to be made good by the petitioner in time. But it is also clear from the order of NCTE that such papers were sent to the NCTE along with the appeal. Now those papers are in possession of NCTE. It is the argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner when papers were sent to the NCTE, the order for withdrawal of recognition should not have been passed. It is also argued by the petitioner’s counsel that no hearing was provided to the petitioner as mentioned in paragraph 10 of the writ petition. The letter granting provisional permission also provides that in case petitioner contravene any of the conditions mentioned in the recognition or in the provisions of the NCTE Act, action shall be taken under the provision of Section 17 of the Act. In paragraph 10 of the writ petition, the petitioner has come up with the case that since the recognition dated 14.11.06 was granted by NRC under Section 14 (3) (a) of the Act, no further particular query or inquiry was ever raised form the NRC and the institute has successfully completed B.Ed. Course for the session 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008-09, even no show cause notice of any kind pointing out any deficiency was ever received by the institute during the said period. This fact has not been denied by the respondents in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit. Thus, it is clear that no opportunity was granted to the petitioner institution and in such situation order passed by respondent authorities is in violation of the proviso of Section 17 of the Act. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. Order dated 09.09.2009 passed by respondent no.1 and order dated 26.11.2009 passed by respondent no.2 are quashed. Stay application no.9 of 2010 stands disposed of. Let a certified copy of the order be supplied to the learned counsel for the parties within 24 hours on payment of usual charges. ( V.K. Bist , J.) Arpan 08.07.2010