IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 22156 of 2008 Between: 1 Karimnagar Education Society, Karimnagar, Karimnagar district, rep. by Secretary G.Surendar S/o. G.Tirupati Aged 39 years, R/o. Karimnagar. 2 Gourisetti Venkataiah Memorial College of Education, 3-7-913, Gourisetti Venkataiah Nagar, Karimnagar, rep. by its Correspondent G.Surender S/o.G.Tirupati. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 National Council for Teacher Education, Southern Regional Committee, Bangalore, Rep. by its Regional Director. 2 The Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3 The Director of School Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 4 Andhra Pradesh State Council of Higher Education, 1st Floor, JNTU, Masab Tank Campus, Hyderabad, rep. by its Secretary. 5 Kakatiya University, Warangal, rep. by its Registrar. 6 The Convenor, Ed.CET., Andhra University, Waltair, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENTS 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 a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 1st respondent in withdrawing recognition of the 2nd Petitioner vide its Proceedings No. F.SRO/NCTE/2008-09/5363, dated 29.9.2008 in contravention of procedure laid down under Section 17 of NCTE Act and contrary to its own resolution taken in its 160th meeting held on 31st July, 2008 & 1.8.2008 and set aside the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to extent the recognition for the academic year 2008-09 and pass such other or further orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.GIRIMOJI RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 22156 OF 2008 ORDER: The 2nd petitioner is a college of Education, which has been established by the 1st petitioner-society. The college was granted recognition by the 1st respondent-National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) vide proceedings dated 04.04.2003 subject to certain conditions. The affiliation was also granted by the Kakatiya University, Warangal and students were being allotted to the 2nd petitioner-college every year. Even for the academic year 2008-09, the 2nd petitioner-college was allotted the students in the counseling held from 15.09.2008 to 24.09.2008. While so, the petitioners came to know that the recognition of the 2nd petitioner- college was withdrawn by the NCTE along with about 13 other colleges 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 2nd petitioner to explain the shortcomings specified therein which included the failure of the petitioner to shift the institution to its own premises. The petitioners state that they have already submitted a detailed explanation. It is alleged that without considering the said explanation, the NCTE had withdrawn the petitioner’s recognition for the academic year 2008-09. Though the said order was not communicated to the petitioners, 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. Aggrieved by the said action, the present writ petition is filed 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 up to the strength of 100. Accordingly, the academic year 2008-09 was completed. While so, by order dated 06.10.2008 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. In the circumstances, the petitioners got amended the prayer in the writ petition by seeking a further declaration that the order of the 1st respondent dated 06.10.2008 is arbitrary and illegal. 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. 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. The petitioners state that such an appeal under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993, has already been filed. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the appellate authority to receive the appeal preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 06-10-2008 treating the same as appeal filed within limitation and dispose of the same 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. Date: 18.08.2009 KLP