IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1447 of 2010 Shakuntala Devi Educational Institute, Brahmanwala Chowk, Haridwar by-pass road, Dehradun, a body of Shakuntala Devi Lok Kalyan Samiti through its Chairman Shri Ashok Aggarwal, S/O Shri S.P.Aggarwal, R/O Shri S.P.Aggarwal, R/O 88 Adarsh Vihar, Kargi road, Dehradun. … Petitioner. Versus Northern Regional Committee (N.R.C.), National Council of Teachers Education (North Region), A-46, Shantipath, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur through its Regional Director. … Respondent. Mr. V.K.Kohli, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Rajendra Tamta, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Sudhir Singh, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent. Date October 29, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 29/31 July 2010 so far it relates to petitioner institution at serial No. 25, Agenda No. 23 passed in meeting 163rd of N.R.C. respondent (Annexure-1). Petitioner has also sought a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent not to interfere in the running of B.Ed. course by the petitioner institution for further sessions. According to the petitioner, the petitioner institute was granted recognition vide order dated 29-12-2006 by the Northern Regional Committee of N.C.T.E. Jaipur (for short NRC) to run B. Ed. Classes for the session 2006-07. In pursuance of the said recognition order, the petitioner institute admitted students in B.Ed. classes. However, by order dated 29/31-7-2010 the respondent- 2 NRC had withdrawn the recognition and communicated its decision to the petitioner institution. The main ground of challenge raised by the petitioner is that the respondent has violated the provision of Section 17(1) of the N.C.T.E. Act. On the other hand, Mr. Sudhir Singh, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondent has submitted that conditional recognition cannot mean that it is absolute and the same is subject to fulfillment of certain conditions. According to him, the order dated 29-12-2006 itself reveals that the recognition was not conclusive rather it is a conditional recognition. A perusal of record shows that the deficiency pointed out by the NCTE was made good by the petitioner and it appears that all requisite documents were sent to the NCTE and they are in possession of the NCTE. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no opportunity of hearing was afforded by the respondent before passing the impugned order. The petitioner institute has successfully completed B.Ed. Course for the session 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09. He further contended that no show cause notice point out any deficiency was ever received by the institute during the said period. The letter granting provisional permission also provides that in case petitioner contravenes any of the conditions mentioned in the recognition order or the N.C.T.E. Act, action shall be taken under the provisions of Section 17 of the said Act. It appears that the petitioner was not subjected to such action till now. In the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this Court in a similar writ petition bearing WPMS No. 1 of 2010, Lal Bahadur Shastri Technical 3 Education Institute Vs. Regional Director N.C.T.E. and others, this Court has passed an order dated 8-7-2010 thereby allowed the writ petition and the impugned order passed by the respondent authority was quashed. I have perused the order dated 8-7-2010 passed by this Court in WPMS No. 1 of 2010, Lal Bahadur Shastri Technical Education Institute Vs. Regional Director N.C.T.E. and others. The controversy involved in the present writ petition is almost identical to that of the aforesaid writ petition. I am of the considered view that the impugned order has been passed in violation of the proviso to Section 17 of the N.C.T.E. Act as no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner-institution. The writ petition deserves to be allowed. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 29/31-7-2010 pertaining to petitioner institution as per Agenda No. 25 is quashed. All pending applications stand disposed of. (B.S.Verma, J.) RCP