- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5900/2010 Tirupati Pratishthan Andhori, Tq.Ahmedpur Dist.Latur. Through its Secretary, Shri Sandeep s/o Santram Rabbewar, age 36 yrs., occu.agri., r/o at post Andhori Tq.Ahmedpur Dist.Latur. ...Petitioner.. Versus 1] The National Council for Teacher Education Hans Bhawan, Wing-II, 1, Bahadurshaha Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110 002. 2] The Regional Director, Western Regional Committee, National Council for Teacher Education, Manas Bhavan, Shyamla Hills, Bhopal-562002. ...Respondents... ..... Shri V.D. Hon, Advocate with Shri P.S. Pawar, Advocate for petitioner. Shri S.S. Bora, Advocate for respondents. ..... - 2 - CORAM: B.R. GAVAI & A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE: 13.10.2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per A.A. Sayed, J.) : 1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2] By the above petition, the petitioner - institution seeks to quash and set aside the order dated 30.12.2009 passed by the respondent no.2 – the Regional Director, Western Regional Committee, National Council for Teacher Education, Bhopal as also the order dated 5.5.2010 passed by the respondent no.1 – the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), New Delhi, in appeal. By the order dated 30.12.2009, the petitioner’s application for opening B.Ed. College at Vasmatnagar Dist.Hingoli was rejected by the respondent no.2, which was confirmed in appeal by the respondent no.1 by the order dated 5.5.2010. 3] The facts in nut-shell are that the petitioner – institution had made an application to the respondent no.2 for opening a B.Ed. College at Vasmatnagar Dist.Hingoli on 28.12.2005. At the relevant time, the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms & Procedure) Regulations, 2005 (“2005 Regulations” for short) were in force. On 28.2.2006, the respondent no.2 directed the petitioner to comply with certain deficiencies. The letter dated 28.2.2006 enumerating the said deficiencies needs to be reproduced. It reads as under: - 3 - “ NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION (A Statutory Body of the Government of India) Western Regional Committee No.WRC/APW03026/123392/2006/1660 Date: 23/28.02.2006 To, The Principal, TRIMURTI BED COLLEGE, PLOT NO.29, PATIL NAGAR, TAL BASMATH, HINGOLI 431512 MAHARASHTRA Sub: Notice u/c 7(4) of the NCTE (Recognition, Norms & Procedure) Regulations 2005 to remove deficiencies in submission of requisite documents. Sir, Take notice u/c 7(4) of the NCTE (Recognition, Norms & Procedure) Regulations 2005 to remove the following deficiencies in submission of requisite documents along with your application u/s 14/15 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act 1993 having NCTE Code No.APWO3026/123392 for BED course:- [1] Documents establishing your eligibility u/c 4 of the Regulations. [2] Documents establishing your lawful possession of the required land and building for conducting the course applied for. [3] Original FDRs of Rs.5.00 lakhs and Rs.3.00 lakhs each per course and per unit obtained from a nationalized bank for a duration of 5 years towards endowment fund and reserve fund respectively. [4] Original affidavit on Rs.100/- Stamp Paper duly attested by Oath Commissioner stating the precise location of the land, the total area of land & building in actual possession, the details of permissions of competent authorities as to use of land & building for educational purposes, mode of possession i.e. ownership of lease, etc. [5] Documents establishing the preparedness of the institution to comply with the conditions u/c 8 of the Regulations. - 4 - [6] Documents establishing the launching of institution’s own website covering, inter-alia, the details of the institution, its location, name of the course applied for with intake, availability of physical as well as instructional and infrastructural facilities (land, building, office, classrooms, laboratories, library etc.) and the particulars of proposed teaching & non-teaching staff with their photographs. You may avail the statutory time-limit of 90 days to remove the deficiencies but it must be understood that the date of removal of all deficiencies shall be the date of completion of application in all respects within the meaning of Clause 7(1) of the Regulations and shall be the date of receipt of your application. You may ignore this notice for the documents already placed on record. Yours faithfully, Under Secretary “ 4] Accordingly, the petitioner made good the said deficiencies. The petitioner thereafter issued several reminders to the respondent no.2 to consider its proposal and grant permission for the opening of the said college for the academic year 2006-07 onwards, which did not meet with any response. The petitioner, therefore, filed a writ petition in this Court being Writ Petition No.8262/2008 praying for direction to the respondent no.2 to consider and decide its proposal. 5] By the order dated 20.4.2009, this Court directed the respondent no.2 to consider and decide the proposal of the petitioner on its own merits by 31.10.2009. 6] Pursuant to the directions of this Court, the application / proposal of the petitioner – institution was considered and was rejected by the impugned order - 5 - dated 30.12.2009 on the ground that as per National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms & Procedure) Regulations, 2007 (“2007 Regulations” for short), only land owned by the Government can be acquired on lease and since the land of the petitioner – institution was acquired on lease from a private person, the document submitted by the petitioner was treated as invalid. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed appeal before the respondent no.1, essentially on the ground that the respondent no.2 had incorrectly applied Clause 8(7) of 2007 Regulations when in fact it was Clause 8(5) of 2005 Regulations, was applicable. The said appeal ultimately came to be rejected by the impugned order dated 5.5.2010. Hence, this petition. 7] We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 8] The principal question, which is involved in the present petition, is whether 2005 Regulations or 2007 Regulations, are applicable in respect of the application of the petitioner. Under Clause 8(5) of 2005 Regulations for granting recognition, it was required that the petitioner ought to have been in possession of land which was on ownership basis or on lease basis for a period not less than 30 years. Clause 8(7) of 2007 Regulations, however, provided an added qualification in case of lands which were acquired on lease. It stipulated that insofar as the land acquired on lease was concerned, the same was required to be only of land belonging to the Government / Government institutions. - 6 - 9] It is common ground that when the application was made by the petitioner, the petitioner’s land was taken on lease basis from an individual. In other words, the land, of which lease was acquired, was not belonging to the Government / Government institutions. It cannot be disputed that at the time when the application was filed by the petitioner, it was 2005 Regulations, which were in force. The same is evident from the letter dated 28.2.2006 of the respondent no.1, which is reproduced hereinabove. In the subject caption of this letter, the respondent no.2, while referring to the application of the petitioner, has specifically referred to 2005 Regulations. It appears that thereafter the petitioner removed the deficiencies / shortcomings as is averred in the petition. 10] Ultimately, in compliance of the directions of this Court to decide the application of the petitioner, by order dated 30.12.2009, the respondent no.2 closed the file of the petitioner – institution and in para 4 of the order, observed as follows: “NOW, THEREFORE, the application is closed for the reasons mentioned below: The land has been acquired by the institution on lease from an individual (Shri Nagoda Largaram Namewar) for a period of 35 years. Whereas, as per the NCTE Regulations, 2007, only land owned by the Government can be acquired on lease. Therefore, the lease document submitted by the institution is treated as invalid.” - 7 - 11] On perusal of the afore mentioned letter dated 28.2.2006 and the impugned order dated 30.12.2009, it is apparent that though the petitioner had made the application under 2005 Regulations, the application of the petitioner was rejected vide the impugned orders relying upon 2007 Regulations. Under 2005 Regulations which governed the application of the petitioner, lease from an individual person was permissible at the relevant time and the petitioner had accordingly acquired lease for a period of 35 years from one Shri Nagoda Largaram Namewar. Merely because the application of the petitioner dated 28.12.2005 came to be decided in the year 2009, by which time 2007 Regulations had come into being, it cannot be said that 2007 Regulations would be applicable to the case of the petitioner. Since at the relevant time of making the application, 2005 Regulations were in vogue, in our view, the application of the petitioner was required to be considered on the basis of 2005 Regulations and the additional conditions contained in 2007 Regulations could not have been applied to the case of the petitioner retrospectively. We take note that inspite of removal of the shortcomings / deficiencies as enumerated by the respondent no.2 in the letter dated 28.12.2006, and in spite of several reminders thereafter, as is averred in the petition, the respondent no.2 sat over the application of the petitioner and the petitioner was ultimately required to file writ petition and obtain directions of this Court to have its application decided. We further note that even by the order dated 5.5.2010 passed in the appeal, the appellate authority has maintained the order of the respondent no.2 on the same ground without going into reasons as to why 2007 Regulations would be applicable as opposed to 2005 Regulations, though - 8 - there was specific ground raised by the petitioner in the appeal that its case would be governed by 2005 Regulations and not 2007 Regulations. As of today, almost half a decade has elapsed since the petitioner had filed its application. 12] One more factor that needs to be noticed is that the petitioner has now purchased the land in question and it is specifically averred in para 8 (wrongly numbered as para 7) of the petition as under: “The petitioner states that, in view of the Clause 8(7) of the N.C.T.E. Regulation 2007, the petitioner by way of abundant precaution has purchased the land in the name of the institution vide registered sale deed dated 6/3/2010 and accordingly vide mutation entry No.1018 the name of the institution is also incorporated in the 7/12 extract so also the village form No.8 also shows the name of the institution to the extent of 40 R land in Gut No.72 of village Injangaon, Tq.Vasmat Dist.Hingoli. Annexed herewith and marked at Exhibit “F” collectively are the copies of the registered saledeed, 7/12 extract and village form 8.” It can, thus, be seen that, as of date, the petitioner has even complied with the requirement of 2007 Regulations. 13] In any case, since we have held that 2007 Regulations have been wrongly applied to the case of the petitioner and the rejection of the application of the petitioner by the respondents by applying 2007 Regulations is wholly - 9 - unsustainable in law. We are, therefore, inclined to allow the petition by setting aside the impugned orders. 14] For the reasons aforementioned, the petition is allowed and Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (B) and (C) of the petition, subject to the petitioner complying with all standards and norms as applicable under 2005 Regulations to the satisfaction of the respondents. No order as to costs. (A.A. Sayed, J.) (B.R. Gavai, J.) ndk/aasj