IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Review No.19 of 2011 In (CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE 10084/2010) The National Council & Ors. Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors. ---------------------------------- with MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION CASE No.299 of 2011 Magadh Teachers Training College Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors. ---------------------------------- 2. 03.08.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the respondent in the review application. Mr. Pathak, learned Counsel appearing for the NCTE submits that this Court in similar cases has directed that any application for fresh inspection after an earlier disputed inspection, has to be accompanied by payment of fresh inspection fee. He therefore submits that the order dated 23.9.2010 in CWJC No. 10084 of 2010 may be reviewed and the directions contained at page 2 of the order that the petitioner shall not be treated as a fresh applicant requiring him to pay necessary fee again, may be modified and/or deleted. He relies on an order in CWJC No. 14754 of 2010. Counsel for the respondents have urged that the order is considered, reasoned and requires no review. The jurisdiction of this Court under review is extremely limited. But nonetheless since Sri Patrhak has relied upon a similar order, the Court considers it proper to deal with that issue. In CWJC No. 14754 of 2010 the facts were that the institution applied for recognition. It was not in controversy that the application was deficient. No inspection was therefore held and without opportunity to remove the deficiency the application was rejected. The petitioner therein 2 claimed that he had removed the deficiency during pendency of the appeal. The appeal was rejected by the NCTE saying that he may apply afresh after removal of deficiency. It is therefore apparent that there was no application submitted originally, as a deficient application was no application. In the present case, this Court has amply noticed that after hearing the parties it did not consider it necessary to take note of past events with regard to inspection, deficiency, removal of deficiency, grant of recognition, fresh show cause notice with regard to recognition granted and subsequent cancellation of that recognition. The facts of the two cases are entirely different. It is unfortunate that the NCTE is attempting to put at par the two cases which apparently are not at par. Be that as it may the Court can invoke its review powers only in case of errors apparent on the face of the record, or if any materials on record was overlooked. But if an order was passed in open Court after hearing the parties and which was reflective of application of mind there is no question of reviewing that order as a review is not an appeal in disguise. MJC No. 299 of 2011 alleges non compliance of the order in CWJC No. 10084 of 2010. Counsel for the petitioner in the contempt application submits that the order of the Court was served on the NCTE on 30.9.2010. It was to be complied with afresh on the issue of recognition within a period of two months from the date of service. Nothing was done during that period of time though the defects had been removed. The show cause filed today states that the NCTE has highest respect for the Court and has no intention of disobeying orders of the Court and stops at that in so far as the compliance of the order is concerned. Para 12 of the same states that the NCTE has been superseded on 3 7.7.2011 for a period of six months and it has been directed by the competent authority that the Regional Committee may continue as scheduled however no decision shall be circulated or intimated to any institution/stakeholder in any form unless the decision is approved by the NCTE headquarters. The aforesaid review application was filed on 19.1.2011, long after the period for compliance indicted in the order by the writ Court was over. The belated review application not even accompanied by any application for condoning the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The limitation for filing of a review application is 30 days from the order on the writ application. Yet in fairness the Court exercising its suo motu powers took up the review application for consideration. From the aforesaid discussion the Court is satisfied that the NCTE, a statutory body, unfortunately has acted in complete disdain and an attitude totally unconcerned with the orders of a Court and the seriousness attached to such orders. The Court could therefore have proceeded against the NCTE today by directing presence for framing of charges. But because NCTE is a statutory body, the Court considers it proper to grant its officers one more indulgence in the fond hope that wisdom shall dawn on them of their responsibility in law. The Court would have expected that in the show cause the NCTE could have at least indicated what kind of time it required for compliance of the order of the Court expect for mentioning in para 13 that that they need “some more time”. The casual approach of the NCTE thoroughly disappoints the Court. Shri Pathak for the NCTE submits that the Court may fix any reasonable time within which the NCTE shall comply the order. Since the NCTE is not willing to come on record its stand by making a request with 4 regard to the time frame, an expectation that the Court certainly had from a statutory body, the Court is left with no option but to fix the time. Whether the petitioner had removed the deficiency subsequently as was submitted on its behalf is a matter to be considered by the NCTE itself. Let such inspection be carried out and final appropriate orders passed within a maximum period of six weeks from today. The Review application is rejected. Let the contempt application be listed at the same position after eight weeks. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)