IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8930 of 2008 Between: Ambati Radhakrishna Reddy Memorial College of Education 12-13, Railway Feders Road, Sullurupeta, Mellote Dist Rep. by A.Dayakar Reddy, S/o. ARK Reddy, Age: 42 years, R/o. Sullurepeta Nellore Distrct ..... PETITIONER AND 1 National Council for Teacher Education, Hans Bhavan, WIng II, 1, BS.Zafar Marg, New Delhi, rep. by its Secreatary. 2 Southern Regional Committee, National Council For Teacher Education, Rep. by its Reginal Director, CSD Building, HMT Post, Banaglore. 3 Govt. of A.p., Rep. by its Principal Secreatary, School Education, Hyderabad. 4 Director of School Education, A.P., Saifabad, Hyd. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No. 1 in refusing to allow the appeal ﬁled by the petitioner as unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondent No. 1 to grant permission for the setting up of Bed College after declaring that lease deeds submitted by the petitioner pertaining to land and building are valid and are to be considered. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.S.MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.B.ADINARAYANA RAO (SC FOR N.C.T.E) The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been ﬁled by Ambati Radha Krishna Reddy Memorial College of Education represented by its Secretary A.Dayakar Reddy assailing the proceedings issued by the Member Secretary, National Council for Teacher Education, vide F.No.89-114/2007-Appeal 71277, dated 07.09.2007, whereby and whereunder the appeal ﬁled by the petitioner assailing the order No.F.SRO/NCTE/B.Ed./2006-2007/2807, dated 15.05.2007, of the Southern Regional Committee, NCTE-2nd respondent, ended in dismissal. 2. The petitioner College submitted application to the 2nd respondent seeking permission to establish B.Ed. college. The 2nd respondent entertained the application and appointed visiting team. The visiting team inspected the premises of the petitioner-College and submitted its report. The 2nd respondent considered the report of the visiting team and directed the petitioner College to submit details regarding the infrastructural facilities to run B.Ed. college with supporting documents. The petitioner-College addressed letter dated 09.04.2007 to the 2nd respondent requesting time for submitting the particulars as required in the letter dated 14.03.2007. Subsequently, certain meetings were held by the 2nd respondent and the report of the visiting team and the relevant material furnished by the petitioner College were considered. Ultimately, the permission sought for by the petitioner College came to be refused. The order passed by the 2nd respondent reads as hereunder: “WHEREAS, Siddharth Educational Society, Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh had applied for grant of recognition to ambati Radhakrishna Reddy Memorial College of Education, No.12-13, Railway Feeders Road, Sullurupet, Nellore District-524 121, Andhra Pradesh for B.Ed. Course of one year duration under Section 14(1) of the NCTE Act, 1993 to the Southern Regional Committee, NCTE. 2. AND WHEREAS, the competent authority had constituted a Visiting Team to visit the institution and the visiting team had since submitted its report. 3. AND WHEREAS in its 126th meeting held on 20-23rd February,2007, the Southern Regional Committee after considering the report of the visiting team as well as other relevant material furnished by the applicant institution, is satisﬁed that the applicant institution does not fulﬁll the requirements and issued a notice on 14.03.2007 to the applicant institution under proviso to Section 14/15(3)(b) of the NCTE Act, 1993, thereby giving an opportunity to the said applicant institution to make a written representation in this behalf. 4.AND WHEREAS, the applicant institution had submitted its written representation dated 09.04.2007 to SRC, NCTE. The said representation of the institution as well as other documents and materials submitted by the institution along with VTR and videography were again duly considered by the Southern Regional Committee on 133rd meeting held on 3rd-4th May, 2007, which came to the conclusion that recognition/permission to the said institution be refused for the following reasons: (i) T he land and building are located in diﬀerent places. It is against NCT E new regulations. 5. NOW, THEREFORE, recognition permission Ambati Radhakrishna Reddy Memorial College of Education, No.12-13, Railway Feeders Road, Sullurupet, Nellore District-524 121 for the B.Ed. Course in terms of Section 14(3) (b) of the NCTE Act, 1993, is hereby refused. 6. If the institution is not satisﬁed by the above Order they can prefer an appeal to the council in terms of Section 18 of NCTE Act, 1993. 7. Also ordered that a copy of this order be published in the Official Gazette.” The petitioner College ﬁled an appeal before the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi-1 st respondent. The 1st respondent rejected the appeal and conﬁrmed the order of the 2nd respondent, on 07.09.2007 vide F.No.89-114/2007- Appeal 71277. The order passed by the 1st respondent reads as hereunder: “WHEREAS the appeal of Ambati Radhakrishna Reddy Memorial College of Education, Nelore District., Andhra Pradesh, dated 18/06/2007 is against the Order No.F.SRO/NCTE/B.Ed./2006- 2007/2807, dated 15/05/2007 of the Southern Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting B.Ed., Course on the grounds that the land and building are located in diﬀerent places which is against NCTE new regulations. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Ambati Radhakrishna Reddy Memorial College of Education (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 25/06/2007 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Dr.L.J.Ramaiah, the Management Consultant and Sri A.Sekhara Reddy, the Member, Ambati Radhakrishna Reddy Memorial College of Education, Nellore Dist., Andhra Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on 30/08/2007. In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that two buildings were taken on lease for the proposed course and it was admitted that the land and building were in fact, located at diﬀerent places. Moreover, from the documents submitted before the Council it was noted that the lease deed was registered on 27/8/2007 i.e., much after the refusal of recognition and thus it was evident that the institution was not having proper documents in regard to the lease of the land and building. AND WHEREAS having considered the oral submission, the papers presented, the records of the case and the VI report, it was felt that there was no ground to accept the appeal. The appeal was therefore rejected and SRC’s order was confirmed.” Hence, this writ petition. 3. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 22.04.2008. The respondents entered appearance through their Standing Counsel and filed counter-affidavit. 4. Prof.B.Krishna Reddy, Regional Director, Southern Regional Committee, NCTE, Bangalore, has sworn to the counter-affidavit. It is stated in the counter-aﬃdavit that the land and building of the petitioner College are at two places, which is not in conformity with the new regulations of the NCTE. It is also stated in the counter-aﬃdavit that the lease deed submitted by the petitioner College was registered on 27.08.2007 i.e. after the refusal of recognition and thus, it is evident that the petitioner College was not having proper documents in regard to the lease of the land and building as on the date of consideration of the application by the 2nd respondent. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner College and learned standing counsel of NCTE appearing for the respondents 1 and 2. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner College submits that the appellate authority has mixed up the issues and thereby erred in dismissing the appeal and that the petitioner College placed the lease deed before the appellate authority and the appellate authority failed to consider the same and proceeded to pass the order impugned in the writ petition. He would also submit that the primary authority did not reject the application of the petitioner-College on the ground of not furnishing the lease deed and whereas the appellate authority invented a new ground for sustaining the order passed by the primary authority. 7. Learned Standing Counsel of NCTE appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submits that the rejection of the application for establishing B.Ed. college came to be ordered because of non-furnishing of the particulars regarding infrastructural facilities and therefore, there is no ﬂaw in the order passed by the primary authority and as conﬁrmed by the appellate authority. 8. I have gone through the orders passed by the primary authority and the appellate authority. The primary authority proceeded to reject the application of the petitioner College on the ground that the land and building are located at diﬀerent places. The ground that the petitioner College failed to place on record the lease deed is not at all adverted to by the primary authority. Indeed the petitioner College was not called upon by the primary authority to place on record the lease deed. But, the appellate authority proceeded to sustain the orders passed by the primary authority on the ground that the petitioner College placed the lease deed before the appellate authority during the course of hearing. When the primary authority did not reject the application of the petitioner College on the ground of not furnishing the lease deed, the appellate authority is not expected to take it as a ground without putting on notice the petitioner College. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the appellate authority suﬀers from serious infirmities and the same is liable to the set aside. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed at the admission stage setting aside the order passed by the 1st respondent vide vide F.No.89-114/2007-Appeal 71277, dated 07.09.2007, and remanding the matter back to the ﬁrst respondent for re-hearing of the appeal and dispose of the same within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:11th September, 2008. Note: Issue C.C. with a week. B/O cs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RS}