Dr. Matta Raja Reddy vs State Of Telangana

This writ petition is filed questioning the order dated 26.11.2021 passed by the 3rd respondent.

Heard Sri Rajeswara Rao Garige, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Muddu Vijay, learned Standing counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3, Sri Adi Venkateshwar Rao, learned counsel appearing for 4th respondent and Smt P.Sharada, learned counsel appearing for respondents 5 and 6.

Vide proceedings dated 28.07.2021, the 2nd respondent withdrew the recognition granted in favour of the petitioner in exercise of its power under Section 17(1) of NCTE Act, 1993 on the following grounds :-

“1. At the time of recognition the institution submitted a copy of sale deed dated 27.03.1998 in response to FSCN the institution submitted Deed of Gift settlement deed dated 17.11.2015. Both the land documents are different and the institution failed to submit satisfactory explanation.

The institution has submitted new CLU at time of submitted of RPRO.

The institution has submitted photocopy of building plan but the stamps and signatures of approving authority are not legible. Moreover, the total built up area is not mentioned in building plan.

As per the building plan, the size of Multipurpose Hall is shown as 1350 sq.ft which is less than 2000 sq.ft required under NCTE Regulations, 2014.

The institution not appointed faculty of Performing Arts, Health and Physical Education and Fine Arts.”

Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein had preferred a statutory appeal before the 3rd respondent. In the said appeal, the petitioner herein has specifically explained the grounds of rejection in detail. The said explanation offered by the petitioner herein is as follows:

Rejection Ground

On the perusal of the reply submitted by the institution on 01.03.2021 the committee observed and found the following deficiencies:- At the time of recognition submitted a copy of sale deed dated 27.03.1998. In response to FSCN, the institution submitted deed of gift settlement deed dated 17.11.2015 both the land documents are different and institution failed to submit satisfactory explanation. 2. The institution has submitted new CLU at time of submitted of RPRO. 3. The institution has submitted photocopy of building plan but the stamps and signatures of approving authority are not legible. Moreover, the total built up area is not mentioned in building plan. 4. As per the building plan, the size of Multipurpose Hall is shown as 1350 sq.ft which is less than 2000 sq.ft required under NCTE Regulations, 2014. 5. The institution not appointed faculty of Performing Arts, Health and Physical Education and Fine Arts.”

Explanation

There is no infrastructural deficiencies in the college and the objections are only technical and there is no lapse on the part of the appellant as required under the NCTE Act,. The college is functioning under the Recognititojn on NCTE granted in 2001 i.e., 20 yeats back and since today, the institution has improved 10 times of infrastructural Development and there is no adverse remark against the institution. The withdrawal cannot be denied on the basis of Technical deficiencies. Now, we are ready to submit:- 1. We submitted land documents (Deed of Gift Settlement) to NCTE, Bangalore on 30.10.2015 and we received letter from NCTE Lt.No.F.No.SRO/ NCTE/APSO0044/B.ED/TS/2016- 17/85772, dated 01.06.2016. The decision of SRC in its 309th meeting held on 12.04.2016 and issued order copy. The college is running in the same place from the beginning, so shifting conditions was removed enclosed the copy. 2. Now, we are submitting building plan with stamps and signature approving autorities are legible and toal built up area is mentioned in building plan. 4. Now, we are submitting multipurpose hall is available in first floor with 2000 sq.fts dimensions (70X302100 sq.fts) revised plan enclosed here with 5. We appointed faculty of performing Arts, Health and Physical Education and Fine Arts. List is enclosed herewith.

Vide impugned order dated 26.11.2021, the 3rd respondent-appellate authority dismissed the Appeal confirming the order dated 28.07.2021 passed by the 2nd respondent. In the impugned order, the 3rd respondent has confirmed the order dated 28.07.2021 on the following grounds:-

“1. Appeal committee perused the relevant records and the documents submitted by appellant institution. Appeal Committee noted that appellant with its appeal memoranda and submissions made during online hearing has failed to submit a complete and comprehensive list of faculty duly approved by affiliating University. The building plan submitted has no address of property. The availability of Multipurpose Hall with adequate size, ought to have been confirmed by submitted a Building Completion Certificate issued by competent authority.

Appeal committee noted that impugned order of withdrawal dated 28.07.2021 merits confirmation from academic year 2022-23. appeal Committee decided to confirm the impugned order of withdrawal dated 28.07.2021 issued by SRC.”

Perusal of the record would reveal that vide letter dated 01.03.2021, the petitioner herein submitted certain documents including certified copy of land documents in original with appeal, notarized land use certificate and original land use certificate, notarized building plan, notarized building completion certificate etc. Referring to the proceedings dated 01.06.2021, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 2nd respondent has waived off the condition of shifting.

Perusal of the record would also reveal that the 2nd respondent has issued final show cause notice dated 15.03.2021 pointing out the following lapses on the part of the petitioner:-

The institution has not submitted certified copy of land documents. The institution is required to submit certified/notarized copy of land docuemtns issued by concerned Tahsildar/Revenue Officer. (If the same are in Regional Language, the institutionis also required to submit notiarised copy of English version of land dcouemtns)

The institution has not submitted certififed copy of land use certificate. The institution is required to submit an attested/notarized copy of Land Use Certificate issued by the Competent Authority.

Survey no., is not mentioned in building pland. The institution is required to submit notarized copy of the blueprint of the building plan as per NCTE norms and standards.

Date of inspection and multipurpose hall is not mentioned in Building Completion Certificate. Building Completion Certificate submitted is not in the prescribed NCTE format. The institution is required to submit an attested/notarized copy of Building Completion Certificate issued by the competent authority.

Photocopy of staff list along with letter from Kakatiya University approved by the Registrar, Kakatiya University consisting of one Principal, 7 Assistant Professors submitted dated NIL for the session 2019-2020.

(a) The staff list submitted by the institution is not in the prescribed NCTE format.

(b) The Principal does not possess a Ph.D. degree.

(c) Percentage of marks not given in the staff list.

The institution has not submitted copy of Form ‘A’ issued by the Branch Manager and the photocopies of FDR has been expired. The institution is required to submit Form ‘A’ issued by the bank manager towards creation of FDR of Rs.7 lakh & Rs.5 lakhs towards Endowment Fund and Reserve Fund”.

Petitioner herein has submitted its explanation on 29.03.2021 along with several documents.

In the order dated 28.07.2021, there is no consideration of said explanation and documents submitted by the petitioner herein. However, in the appeal filed by the petitioner herein, it has explained each lapse in particular with reference to the documents including land use certificate, building completion certificate and particulars of staff in format etc. There is no consideration of said facts, more particularly, the grounds raised by the petitioner in Appeal in the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent.

As discussed supra, the 3rd respondent dismissed the appeal confirming the impugned order dated 28.07.2021 of the 2nd respondent only on the ground that petitioner herein has not submitted complete and comprehensive list of faculty approved by affiliating University and the building plan submitted has no address of property. The availability of Multipurpose Hall with adequate size ought to have been confirmed by submitting a building completion certificate issued by the competent authority. Perusal of documents filed by the petitioner herein would reveal that in the building plan, address of the petitioner is very much there. It has also furnished the list of faculty. The said facts were not considered by the 2nd respondent.

According to this Court, there is no consideration of all the grounds raised and documents submitted by the petitioner herein in the impugned order dated 28.07.2021. Moreover, in the impugned order the 3rd respondent had mentioned the date of the order passed by the 2nd respondent as 20.01.2020 instead of 28.07.2021. Therefore, the impugned order is not a reasoned order and it is nullity.

Therefore, without going into the merits and demerits of the case, the order dated 26.11.2021 passed by the 3rd respondent is set aside and accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. The matter is remanded back to 3rd respondent with a direction to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law considering all the grounds raised and documents filed by the petitioner herein in statutory appeal and pass a reasoned order. The 3rd respondent shall complete the said exercise within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand closed.