(1) IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.6.) WRIT PETITION (c) N0. ^3' OF 2011 ,^^ ^••',s. Wf <y/ -y -y^fnff ^%s^ ^.;4-\.<'J;/' '••^s 'yy -^'^' h:\^?' -y Vs RESPON&ENTS PETITIONER ' Viswa Bharathi Institute, Riapur run by Viswa Bharathi Educational Development Society.a society duly registered under the relevant provisions of the C.6. Societies Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1972 having its registered office at Raipur through its Director Dr. Rakesh Mishra, son of Late Shri R.S. Mishra, resident of MI6 61 Housing Board Colony.RdipurCC.S.). 1. The National Council for Teacher Education, WRC through its Regional Director.Manas Bhawan, Shyamla Hills,Bhopal (M.P.). 2. The National Council for Teacher Education, through its Secretary, 1-lans Bhawan, Wing- II, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi- 110 002. 3. Pt. Ravi Shankar University, through its Registrar, Raipur. WRIT PETITION UNbER ARTICLE2260F THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1. PRTICULARS OF PETITIONER:- '•%, g^ HIGH_CQURT OF_CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) N0.2310 OF_20U PETITIONER Viswa Bharathi Institute, Raipur RESPONDENTS Versus The National Council for Teacher Education & Others (Writ Petition underArticles 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Adiraj Surana, Advocates for the petitioner. Shri Bhaskar Pyasi, Advocate for the respondents No.1 & 2. Shri R.K. Mishra, Advocate forthe respondent No.3. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed onthis 7th dayofJuly, 2011) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to quash the order dated 11-3-2011 and also the order dated 2-12-2010 by which the recognition of the petitioner institute has been withdrawn. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondents to allow students of B.Ed. course to pursue in the academic session 2011-12. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that after obtaining the recognition, the petitioner is running the B.Ed. course in the college as per the norms fixed in this regard. According to the petitioner on 11th & 12th May, 2010 the Inspection Committee inspected the petitioner institute and submitted its report before the respondent No.1, which was never supplied to the petitioner nor any opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that on the basis of inspection conducted by the Western Regional Committee on 11 & 12 May, 2010, a show cause notice dated 7-7-2010 was issued to the petitioner without following the procedure wherein the petitioner has been called upon to the submit its reply on the queries raised in the show cause notice within 30 days. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply along with supporting documents. However, the respondent No.2 being dissatisfied with the reply of the petitioner passed the order of withdrav/al of recognition dated 2-12-2010 againgt which an appeal has been preferred by the g^ ja-L •n 6. petitioner before the respondent No.1. The same has also been dismissed byorderdated 11-3-2011. Thus, this petition. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 & 2 submits that at the time of inspection the staff profile was not approved by the University. On perusal of the order dated 2-12-2010 (Annexure - P/10), it appears that the committee in its 140 meeting decided to withdraw the recognition/permission to the institution to conduct the B.Ed. course on account of following contraventions of the provision of the NCTE Act, Rules and Regulations framed thereunder: "1. The land is not owned by the institution society. 2. Staff profile duly approved by the University has not been submitted." In this regard, learned counset appearing for the petitioner exptains that after the impugned order was passed, the staff profile has been approved by the University on 6-6-2011. Learned counsel further submits that the other defects shall be made good at the earliest. Be that as it may, without going into the merits of the case, it is open to the petitioner to make a representation after complying with the norms and making good the defects as pointed out, as prescribed under clause 8 of the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms & Procedure), Regulations, 2009 to the respondents No.1 & 2. On receipt of representation, it is expected that the respondent authorities shall take appropriate steps for inspection and thereafter, case of the petitioner shall be considered for grant of recognition in accordance with law and on its own merits, expeditiously. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Gowri Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge