AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vijay Bishnoi, J.—In an intra court appeal being D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 688/2013 preferred by the petitioner-institution against the order dated 17.07.2013, whereby the second stay application of the institution was rejected by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the Division Bench of this Court has made a request to the Single Judge in the following terms:
The appeal is, thus, disposed of with a request to the Single Bench, incharge of the roster, to give due priority to the accompanying writ petition for its disposal having regard to the time frame suggested hereinabove. In view of this order, the office would list the accompanying writ petition before the appropriate Bench on 29.08.2013.
On account of holiday declared on 29.08.2013, the matter was listed on 30.08.2013 and in view of the request made by the Division Bench, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter was finally heard on 30.08.2013 and the judgment was reserved.
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-institution, a society registered under the Society Registration Act, 1958, was allotted 40,000 square meter of land by the Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur (for short ''the JDA'' hereinafter) on 21.06.2000 in Budh Singhpura Scheme of Jaipur City. It is claimed that the said allotment of the land was approved by the State Government vide letter dated 03.11.2000, the petitioner-institution deposited the amount with the JDA and the possession of the land was handed over to it. In the year 2009, the petitioner-institution had applied for No Objection Certificate to start B.Ed. Course, which was granted by the State Government on 27.12.2004. On the strength of No Objection Certificate granted by the State Government, the petitioner-institution submitted an application on 30.12.2004 before the Northern Regional Committee, National Council for Teacher Education for grant of recognition for starting B.Ed. Course with an annual intake of 100 seats. The respondent-National Council for Teacher Education granted recognition to the petitioner-institution for B.Ed. Course of one year duration with an annual intake of 100 seats in terms of section 14(1) of the National Council For Teacher Education Act, 1993 (for short ''the NCTE Act, 1993'' hereinafter). Later on, in the year 2007, the petitioner-institution had applied for grant of recognition for starting B.Ed. additional Course of one year duration with an annual additional intake of 100 students. Respondent No. 4-Northern Regional Committee, National Council for Teacher Education had granted recognition to the petitioner-institution for conducting B.Ed. additional Course of Secondary (level) of one year duration with an annual additional intake of 100 seats for academic session 2008-2009 while exercising powers u/s 15(3) a of the NCTE Act, 1993. The petitioner-institution was running the said course successfully from the date of grant of recognition. However, on 18th September, 2012, the respondent No. 4-Northern Regional Committee, National Council for Teacher Education issued a show cause notice to the petitioner-institution u/s 17 of the NCTE Act, 1993 in the following manners:
The Committee after going through all relevant records, report of CBI viz-a-viz provisions of the NCTE Act, Rules & Regulations, and the NRC deliberated and considered the case in detail. The Committee observed the following:
The institution vie letter No. SS/2005-6/1217 dt. 22.06.2005 submitted a letter No. JDA/Jopne-9/05/D-679 dt. 21.06.2005 purportedly received from Dy. Commissioner, Zone-9, JDA, Jaipur informing therein that the building had been constructed as per norms and JDA had no objection in allowing the institution to run educational courses. The same has been found forged as verified by the CBI, Jaipur. Therefore the institution has contravened the provision of the NCTE Regulations.
The NRC further noted that as per the provisions contained in clause 7(I-B) of the NCTE Regulations, 2009 "Furnishing any wrong information or concealment of facts in the application, which may have bearing on the decisions making process or the decisions pertaining to grant of recognition, shall result in withdrawal of recognition of the institution besides other legal action against its management, order of withdrawal of recognition shall be passed after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing through a show cause notice to the institution.
Hence, the NRC decides to issue Show Cause Notice u/s 17 of the NCTE Act, to the institution on the above points and direct the institution to submit the reply accompanied with an affidavit as per provisions of the NCTE Rules & Regulations within 30 days.
In view of the above, you are hereby requested to submit the representation of the institution accompanied with an affidavit from the authorized representative of the management as per provision of the NCTE Act, Rules & Regulations within 30 days.
In response to show cause notice dated 18.09.2012, the Honorary Secretary of the petitioner-institution submitted its reply on 17.10.2012. Thereafter, the petitioner-institution submitted another reply in furtherance to earlier reply on 10.12.2012, wherein it is mentioned that the Deputy Commissioner, Zone-9, JDA, Jaipur vide letter dated 21.11.2012 clearly stated that JDA, Jaipur does not have any objection if the petitioner-institution runs any college for women education on the land allotted to it by the JDA. Along with the writ petition, a letter dated 23.01.2013 (Annexure-7), purportedly issued by the Deputy Commissioner Zone-9, JDA, Jaipur, has also been submitted in which the JDA has again clarified that if the petitioner-institution runs any college for women education in the building constructed on the plot allotted to it, the JDA has no objection. However, the respondent No. 4-Northern Regional Committee, National Council for Teacher Education has passed the impugned order dated 28.01.2013, whereby the recognition granted to the petitioner-institution for conducting B.Ed. Course for 100 seats has been withdrawn. While withdrawing the recognition, the Northern Regional Committee, National Council for Teacher Education has observed as under:
AND WHEREAS, the reply received from the institution in response to the aforesaid notice was considered by NRC in its 209th meeting held from 26th to 28th December, 2012 and the Committee decided that the recognition for the said course be withdrawn under provision of NCTE, Regulations, 2009 on the following points:-
On the basis of verification of records submitted by the institution it has been found that the institution has constructed the college building without approval of the map by the competent authority, Jaipur Development Authority, This is in violation of the norms of NCTE.
NOW THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers vested u/s 17(1) of NCTE Act, 2009, the Northern Regional Committee hereby withdraw the above recognition granted to S.S. Jain Subodh Mahila Shikshak Prashikshan Mahavidyalaya, Opposite Airport, Sanganer, Jaipur, Rajasthan for 100 seats in the B.Ed. Course on the grounds mentioned above with effect from the end of the academic session next following the date of communication of this order.
Being aggrieved with the order dated 28.01.2013, the petitioner-institution has preferred this writ petition on various grounds.
Though, no reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 3-National Council for Teacher Education and respondent No. 4-Northern Regional Committee, National Council for Teacher Education, yet the petitioner-institution has filed rejoinder to the reply filed by respondent No. 3. On the inquiry having been made from the Registry, it has been informed that no reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
Be that as it may, an affidavit has been filed on behalf of Jaipur Development Authority, wherein it is stated that since the land was allotted to the petitioner-institution for the purpose of women education, therefore, the JDA has no objection if it is utilized for women education. It is also stated in the affidavit that the plan for construction submitted by the petitioner-institution is under consideration as the matter regarding exemption from charges was pending consideration with the State Government. It is also stated that vide letter dated 06.03.2013, the State Government has given consent for exemption from charges.
During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the respondent-JDA has categorically stated that the JDA has no objection if the petitioner-institution runs B.Ed. College in the building constructed on the plot allotted to it by the JDA.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order dated 28.01.2013 on various grounds and has argued that the order impugned has been passed without affording a single opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-institution and, therefore, the same is violative of principles of natural justice and as such it is liable to be quashed and set aside. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner-institution that along with the reply dated 10.12.2012, the No Objection Certificate issued by the JDA on 21.11.2012 was also produced but the respondent No. 4 without considering the same has passed the impugned order and, therefore, it is clear that the respondent No. 4 while passing the impugned order has ignored all relevant facts. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No. 4 has failed to take into consideration that the petitioner-institution has not violated any of the provisions of the NCTE Act, Rules or Regulations and, therefore, the action of the respondent No. 4 in withdrawing the recognition of the petitioner-institution by invoking the powers u/s 17 of the NCTE Act, 1993 is absolutely without any basis. Lastly, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner-institution is running the B.Ed. Course from last seven years and during the various inspections conducted by the NCTE Officials, no deficiency regarding infrastructure, facilities and availability of faculty members has been found. On the other hand, the Visiting Team of the NCTE has confirmed that the institution has fulfilled the norms of the course concerned and, therefore, in such circumstances, the action of the respondent No. 4 in withdrawing the recognition granted to the petitioner-institution for running B.Ed. Course is absolutely illegal and is liable to be quashed and set aside.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-NCTE has argued that the petitioner-institution has submitted a forged document along with the application seeking recognition for running B.Ed. Course. The action of the respondent No. 4-NCTE in withdrawing the recognition granted to the petitioner-institution is perfectly in accordance with Clause 7(I-B) of the NCTE Regulations, 2009 and, therefore, no case for interference is made out.
The learned counsel for the respondent-JDA has reiterated that if the petitioner-institution runs a B.Ed. College for women in the building constructed on the land allotted to it by JDA, the JDA has no objection. In respect of the letters dated 21.11.2012 and 23.01.2013 submitted by the petitioner-institution along with the writ petition, the learned counsel for JDA has stated that the same are issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Zone-9, JDA, Jaipur.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order has been passed by the respondent No. 4 without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-institution is not tenable in view of the fact that the NCTE issued the show cause notice dated 18.09.2012 to the petitioner-institution and the petitioner-institution submitted reply to the said notice on 17.09.2012 and thereafter on 10.12.2012, and the NCTE, after taking into consideration the reply submitted by the petitioner-institution, has passed the impugned order and, therefore, it cannot be said that no proper opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner-institution.
The another contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner-institution has not violated any provision of the NCTE Act, Rules or Regulations and the respondent No. 4 has illegally withdrawn the recognition granted to the petitioner to run the B.Ed. Course while exercising powers u/s 17 of the NCTE Act, 1993, is also considered but for rejection only because under the provisions of NCTE Act, Rules and Regulations, the NCTE can withdraw the recognition of any institution if it furnishes any wrong information or concealed any fact in the application pertaining to the grant of recognition.
However, in the present case, it is clear from the impugned order that the respondent No. 4 has withdrawn the recognition of the petitioner-institution on the ground that the petitioner-institution has constructed the college building without approval of the map by the competent authority i.e. Jaipur Development Authority and this action of the petitioner-institution is in violation of the norms of the NCTE.
It is to be noticed that the Deputy Commissioner, Zone-9, JDA, Jaipur vide letters dated 21.11.2012 and 23.01.2013 has clearly stated that they have no objection if the petitioner-institution runs a B.Ed. College in the building constructed on the plot allotted to it. However, so far approval of maps of the constructed college building is concerned, it is clarified by the JDA that the same cannot be issued since the matter regarding exemption from charges is pending consideration with the State Government. In the letter dated 23.01.2013, the Deputy Commissioner, Zone-9, JDA, Jaipur has clarified that the site plan cannot be made available, however, if the petitioner-institution runs the course for the women education in the building constructed on the land allotted to it by the JDA, the JDA has no objection.
From perusal of the impugned order dated 28.01.2013, it is clear that the respondent No. 4-Northern Regional Committee, National Council for Teacher Education has not taken into consideration the letters dated 21.11.2012 and 23.01.2013 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Zone-9, JDA, Jaipur. In such circumstances, in the fitness of things, it is required that the respondent No. 4 Northern Regional Committee, National Council for Teacher Education should consider the above mentioned letters issued by the JDA and thereafter to take a fresh decision in respect of the show cause notice dated 18.09.2012 issued to the petitioner-institution. While deciding the notice dated 18.09.2012, the respondent No. 4 shall also take into consideration the fact that the petitioner-institution is running the women B.Ed. College for last seven years and during the various inspections conducted by the NCTE and other agencies from time to time, no deficiency regarding infrastructure, finance, facilities, availability of faculty members etc. has been found.
Though the petitioner-institution has an alternative remedy of filing an appeal u/s 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the impugned order dated 28.01.2013, but no such objection is raised on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, and in view of the undisputed fact that before passing of the impugned order, the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have not taken into consideration the orders dated 21.11.2012 and 23.01.2013 passed by the JDA, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose will be served by directing the petitioner-institution to prefer an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority.
Consequently, the writ petition is allowed The impugned order dated 28.01.2013 (Annexure-8) is quashed and set aside. The respondent No. 4 Northern Regional Committee, National Council for Teacher Education is directed to take a fresh decision upon the notice dated 18.09.2012 after taking into consideration the letters dated 21.11.2012 and 23.01.2013 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Zone-9, JDA, Jaipur, wherein the JDA has categorically stated that it has no objection if the petitioner-institution runs a women education college in the building constructed on the plot allotted to it by the JDA. While deciding the notice dated 18.09.2012, the respondent No. 4 shall also take into consideration the fact that the petitioner-institution is running the women B.Ed. College for last seven years and during the various inspections conducted by the NCTE and other agencies from time to time, no deficiency regarding infrastructure, finance, facilities, availability of faculty members etc. has been found.
However, it is made clear that this order will have no effect on the criminal proceedings pending against the Honorary Secretary and the Principal of the petitioner-institution in respect of submission of forged NOC. No order as to costs.