IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 442 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 17/04/2008 in WP NO : 8225 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Seven Hills B.Ed. College, Thimmayapalem Road, Door No. 11-434, Vinukonda (M), Guntur District (AP) rep by its Correspondent Dalari yedukondalu S/o Venkateswarlu aged 49 years Telaga r/o Vinukonda, Guntur District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 National Concil for Teacher Education (NCTE) (A staturoty Body of the Government of India) Southern Regional Committee, 1st Floor, CSD Building, HMT Post, Banglore-560 003, repby its chairperson. 2 Southern Regional Committee, rep by its Regional Director, national Concil for Teacher Education (NCTE) 1st Floor, CSD Building, HMT Post, Banglore .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.SITA RAM CHAPARLA Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.B.ADINARAYANA RAO The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per RSR,J) This writ appeal is filed by the original petitioner in the writ petition, aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 17-4-2008 passed in W.P.No.8225 of 2008. In the writ petition, the petitioner-College which is running a B.Ed. College, has questioned the notice dated 9-4-2008 issued by the National Council for Teacher Education. The said notice of inspection was issued by the Southern Regional Committee constituted under the Act. It is stated that pursuant to the said notice, inspection has taken place and the enquiry report is also prepared. Though it is the case of the appellant- petitioner that there was no such power to the Regional Committee, but the learned Single Judge, having regard to the provisions of Sections 12, 13 and 17 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (for short ‘the Act’) has held that the said sections gives adequate power for the respondents to undertake such an inspection during the currency of the academic session. As much as the impugned notice dated 9-4-2008 is only a notice of inspection and as we are in agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge and looking to the provisions of Sections 12, 13 and 17 of the Act, we find no ground to interfere with the findings of the learned Single judge. However, it will be open to the appellant-petitioner to question the consequential action if any taken pursuant to the notice of inspection and also the report prepared thereon. Subject to the above observation, the writ appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs. ________________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 24th July, 2008. _______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J GRR