Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Modern Educational Society vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. on 19 December, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2002(1)ALD759, 2002(1)ALT227
Author: A.R. Lakshmanan
Bench: Ar. Lakshmanan
JUDGMENT A.R. Lakshmanan, C.J.
1. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order-dated 1.11.2001 in W.P. No. 18761 of 2001 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein.
2. The Writ Petition was filed by the appellant to declare that the application submitted by the 4th respondent herein -MNR Educational Trust, Kukatpally to the respondents 1 and 2 for issuance of No Objection Certificate (NOC) for establishment of a B.Ed College in Hyderabad East Revenue Division pursuant to the notification dated 24.2.1998 issued by the Director of School Education as nonexistent and the NOC granted to the 4th respondent on 30.12.2000 and the subsequent decision taken by the State Level Standing Committee (SLSC) on 28/29-8-2001 not to cancel the NOC already granted to the 4th respondent on 30.12.2000 as illegally and void and to direct the 3rd respondent not to grant permission to the 4th respondent for establishment of B.Ed., College in Hyderabad East Revenue Division for the academic year 2001-2002 and consequently direct the 3th respondent to consider the application of the appellant-writ petitioner and Loyola Educational Society, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad and Rafiuddin Memorial Educational Society, Hyderabad on merits for grant of permission for the establishment of B.Ed., College.
3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The Director of School Education published a notification dated 24.2.1998 inviting applications from the private educational societies for starting B.Ed., Colleges for the academic year 1998-99 with an intake capacity of maximum 120 seats as per the guidelines/regulations formulated by the National Counsel for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (for short 'the Act'). Qualification No.3 of the said notification is to the effect that providing of two hectares of land in the name of the society and providing of corpus fund of Rs. 5.00 lakhs are some primary conditions for considering issue of NOC. Qualification No.6 states that the filled in application for issue of NOC should be accompanied by i) a copy of the constitution and bye-laws of the Educational Agency proposing to establish the institution along with the copy of the registration under Societies Act, ii) a demand draft for Rs. 15,000/-, iii) a sketch plan of the site of minimum of two hectares of land; iv) a deposit of Rs. 5.00 lakhs is to be provided as corpus fund by way of fixed deposit in Nationalised Bank/NSC in the joint name of Society and the DEO concerned, v) an affidavit on Rs. 100/- stamp paper solemnly affirming not to start the college without NCTE permission and in case of Minority Colleges, not to make admission without NOC of competent authority.
4. According to the appellant, the 4th respondent did not submit FDR for Rs. 5.00 lakhs on a nationalised bank/NSC, which is a mandatory condition. Instead, the 4th respondent furnished FDR No. 0078737, dated 20.3.1998 for Rs. 5.00 lakhs drawn on Vysya Bank, Kukatpally along with its application for issuance of NOC. Subsequently, at the time of physical verification of the society by the inspection team of the Government of Andhra Pradesh, the 4th respondent has shown FDR No. 460869 dated 17.2.1999 for Rs. 5.00 lakhs drawn on Andhra Bank, Balanagar Branch. When the 4th respondent was requested to submit the original FDR and land documents, vide telegram dated 7.10.2000 by the Commissioner and Director of School Education, it has furnished FOR No. 519480 dated 18.10.2000 for Rs. 5.00 lakhs drawn on Andhra Bank which was not the original FDR submitted by it along with the application dated 20.3.1998. Subsequently, it came to light that the 4th respondent by letter dated 9.9.1999 requested the Chief Manager, Andhra Bank, Balangar Branch to cancel the FDR dated 17.2.1999 issued for Rs. 5 lakhs. Accordingly, the FDR was cancelled and the amount was credited to the current account of the 4th respondent. In view of this, the applications submitted by the 4th respondent for the grant of NOC was no longer subsisting and there was no application in the eye of law and was no longer survived on and after 9.8.1999. Suppressing this fact the 4th respondent submitted a new FDR No. 519480 dated 8.10.2000 for Rs. 5.00 lakhs to the Director of School Education. Instead of rejecting the application of the 4th respondent, NOC was granted to it and thereafter the 4th respondent has submitted its application to the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), Southern Regional Officer, Bangalore - 3rd respondent herein for consideration of its application for permission to establish the B.Ed., college in Hyderabad east revenue division.
5. The 3rd respondent by notice dated 23.7.2001 informed the appellant that it had identified the 4th respondent for granting permission and the appellant was directed to show-cause as to why the application submitted by them should not be rejected. A reply was submitted on 10.8.2001. In the meanwhile, the 2nd respondent by proceeding dated 26.7.2001 issued notice to the 4th respondent to show-cause as to why the NOC granted to it should not be cancelled as the application submitted by it with FDR for Rs. 5.00 lakhs of Vysya Bank which is not a nationalised bank was not a valid one. Challenging the said show-cause notice, the 4th respondent filed W.P.No-17561 of 2001. This Court disposed of the said writ petition on 24.8.2001 directing the SLSC, which has to consider the issue on 8.8.2001, to take an appropriate decision in the matter in accordance with law. The SLSC met on 28.8.2001 and resolved not to cancel the NOC on the ground that the FDR dated 18.10.2000 was sufficient compliance.
6. According to the appellant, the committee has failed to see that the application filed by the 4th respondent was defective and even otherwise it no longer existed on and after 9.8.1999 when the FDR taken on Andhra Bank was cancelled by the 4th respondent by letter dated 9.8.1999. By letter dated 26.7.2001, the 2nd respondent has informed the 3rd respondent that a show-cause notice dated 26.7.2001 was issued to the 4th respondent and requested the 3rd respondent to hold its decision until final decision is taken in the matter. It was further stated that in view of the fact that the committee has decided on 28.8.2001 not to cancel the NOC issued to the 4th respondent, respondents 1 and 2 will be communicating the decision to the 3rd respondent at any moment and the 3rd respondent would be granting permission to the 4th respondent for establishing the B.Ed. college. It was further submitted that the appellant will suffer serious loss and irreparable injury if this is allowed to done. Excluding the 4th respondent, amongst the other applicants, the appellant ranks No. 1 and would be given permission. Thus, the above writ petition was filed alleging that the decision of the SLSC taken on 28.8.2001 is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction.
7. Along with the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P. No. 23560 of 2001 was filed to direct the respondents 1 and 2 not to confirm the NOC issued vide proceedings dated 30.12.2000 of the Director of School Education to the 4th respondent pursuant to the decision taken on 28/29-8-2001. The appellant also filed WPMP. No. 23561 of 2000 for direction to the 3rd respondent not to act upon the NOC issued to the 4th respondent and the decision taken on 28/29-8-2001 by the SLSC to grant permission to the 4th respondent to establish the B.Ed, college. On these two applications, this Court by order-dated 7.9.2001 directed the respondent not to proceed further pursuant to the NOC issued to the 4th respondent dated 30,12.2000 and decision taken by the SLSC on 28/19-8-2001. The appellant also filed another miscellaneous application being WPMP. No. 23562 of 2001 to direct the NCTE to consider the applications of the appellant, Loyola Educational Society, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad and Rafiuddin Memorial Educational Society, Hyderabad on merits for grant of permission for establishment of B.Ed., college in Hyderabad east revenue division.
8. The 4th respondent filed a counter-affidavit denying the allegations contained in the affidavit filed by the appellant herein. The contentions are:
(a) The writ petition is not maintainable for the simple reason that the application of the appellant society for grant of recognition to start a College of education after the issuance of NOC in its favour by the 2nd respondent was rejected by the 3rd respondent - Southern Regional Committee, NCTE, Bangalore and against the said rejection, there is an alternative remedy available to the appellant-petitioner by way of approaching the Appeal Committee, NCTE, New Delhi. Therefore, in the face of the rejection of the application of the appellant by the 3th respondent, the writ petition is not maintainable.
(b) The writ petition is also not maintainable for yet another reason that the appellant has not approached this Court with clean hands. The appellant on the date of his application for issuance of NOC to the 2nd respondent in response to the notification dated 24.2.1998 did not submit title deeds for two hectares of land which is one of the basic conditions is a matter of record and that the appellant's society represented by its founder secretary and correspondent purchased the said land of five acres and 8 guntas by registered sale deed dated 11.7.2000. This fact has been brought to the notice of the District Collector, Rangareddy by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Ghatkesar through letter dated 26.7.2000. This was in response to the information sought by the District Collector, RR district who in turn was requested by the 2nd respondent to conduct necessary verification. This aspect of appellant not having the title deed on the date of the application was suppressed and not disclosed by the appellant in the writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of the appellant not approaching this Court with clean hands.
(c) The appellant has no locus standi to maintain the writ petition in view of the rejection order issued by the 3rd respondent which has not been assailed by way of appeal under the NCTE Act.
(d) It is well settled law by a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Government of A.P. v. St. Mary's Educational Society, Giddaluru, 2001 (4) ALD 268, wherein it was clearly ruled that all the conditions stipulated should be satisfied by the applicants at the time of granting recognition by NCTE. In view of the settled legal position, the issue of FDR furnished by the 4th respondent earlier prior to the issuance of NOC is no longer open for debate and at any rate the appellant-petitioner cannot have any locus standi to raise the said issue.
(e) The 4th respondent brought to the notice of the 2nd respondent the true position through letter dated 22.12.2000 and after being satisfied alone, the 2nd respondent issued the NOC through proceedings dated 30.12.2000 and after inspecting the colleges of the appellant and the 4th respondent, the 3rd respondent approved the application of the 4th respondent and rejected the applications of the other applicants. Pursuant to the order of this Court in W.P. No. 17561 of 2001, the State Level Standing Committee intimated through the 2nd respondent asking the Managing trustee of the 4th respondent to appear before the committee and accordingly the managing trustee appeared on 29.8.20901 and elicited total and complete information through various queries. It was further stated that even assuming without conceding that the NOC granted in favour of the 3rd respondent is to be cancelled, still the appellant society cannot get the permission and recognition to start the B.Ed., College as their application was already rejected by the 3rd respondent.
9. A learned single Judge of this Court on a consideration of the entire material placed before him came to the conclusion that the decision arrived at by the authorities cannot be interfered with by this Court, more especially when the arbitrariness is not to be identified. The submission of the demand drafts etc., are all matters relating to the procedure aspects and the State Government was satisfied that the submission of demand draft at a later stage would not disable the fourth respondent from claiming recognition. Therefore, this Court refused to scrutinise the same by virtue of the power of judicial review. The learned Judge further held:
The act of granting NOC is a pure administrative act and as held by a Division bench of this Court, the ultimate authority is the third respondent-Council, which has to scrutinise the applications received from the State Government and it is for the third respondent-council to consider all these matters and take a decision. Admittedly, in the instant case, the decision was taken by the third respondent-Council to grant recognition to the fourth respondent basing on various considerations, which weighed with the third respondent-council and at this point of time, travelling in a reverse direction and challenging the NOC is uncalled for and unwarranted.
Under these circumstances, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
10. Being aggrieved, the writ petitioner has preferred the Writ Appeal.
11. Heard Sri E. Manohar, learned Senior counsel and Sri V. Kishore for the appellants, Sri Prakash Reddy, learned Additional Advocate-General for respondents 1 and 2, Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent and Sri P. Balakrishna Murthy, learned counsel for the 4th respondent.
12. Sri Manohar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the learned single Judge erred in opining that the action of the State Government calling for applications and imposing conditions are administrative in nature without any backing by the NCTE. According to the learned counsel, the learned Judge had failed to notice that the NCTE has framed binding norms and standards and under Norm 5.2, "the institutions must adopt financial procedure prescribed by the Central/State Government concerned" and pursuant to which the State Government prescribed the procedure and by notification dated 24.2.1998 directed the applicants to deposit Rs. 5.00 lakhs as corpus fund by way of fixed deposit in Nationalised Banks/NSC and that the application for issue of NOC should be accompanied by the deposit of Rs. 5.00 lakh towards corpus fund. He would further submit that the 4th respondent did not make such a deposit in the nationalised bank/NSC but deposited in Vysya bank, a non-nationalised bank on 20.3.1998 and subsequently during the physical verification of the compliance of the conditions by the inspection team appointed, the 4th respondent produced the fixed deposit dated 7.10.2000 of the Andhra Bank, a nationalised bank, which was not the original FDR dated 20.3.1998 furnished by the 4th respondent and that the 4th respondent suppressed the vital fact that the 4th respondent had taken FDR dated 17.2,1999 on the Andhra bank and by the letter dated 9.8.1999 cancelled it. Thus, Sri Manohar submitted that there was no valid application of the 4th respondent for consideration by the Government for the issuance of NOC and as held by this Court in Syed Moosa Quadri v. State of A.P., 1980 (1) ALT 23 (DB), wherein consideration of such an application was held to illegal and void. Our attention has also been drawn to the various material papers filed by the appellant-petitioner.
13. Per contra, Mr. Prakash Reddy learned Additional Advocate-General appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the SLSC in its meeting held on 5.1.1999 scrutinised the application of the 4th respondent along with other applications and found it eligible and decided to get physical verification done by the team consisting of Regional Joint director of School Education and faculty of Education, Osmania university to decided the comparative merit of various societies in order to issue NOC to the best eligible society and that the inspection team conducted the inspection on 23.2.1999 and submitted its report. Our attention has also been drawn to the minutes of the meeting of the SLSC held on 28.8.2001 and 29.8.2001 in the chambers of the Commissioner and Director of School Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. The Committee consists of Dr. Manmohan Singh, IAS, Commissioner and Director of School Education as the Chairman of the Committee and Kum. H.K. Kusuma, Deputy Secretary to government and prof. V.B.B. Sarma, Dean Faculty of Education, Osmania University, Hyderabd as members. The committee after considering the order of this Court in W.P.No. 5343 of 1999 dated 9.11.2000 and the orders in W.P.No. 17795 of 1999 dated 3.4.2000 filed by Al Kareem Welfare Society for Minorities and the opinion of the learned Additional Advocate-General recorded by the Director of School Education in File No. 2310/N2-2/97 dated 6.1.2000 with regard to the land issue in respect of Sri Venkateswara Educational society, Cuddapah and AMG India International, Chilakaluripet, Guntur district resolved not to cancel the NOC issued to 4th respondent - MNR Educational Trust. It is useful to reproduce the relevant portion of the minutes of the SLSC which reads thus:
Legal opinion of the Additional Advocate General recorded by the Director of School Education in File No. 2310/N2-2/97, dated 16.1.2000 with regard to land issue in respect of Sri Venkateswara Educational Society, Cuddapah and AMG India International, Chilakaluripet, Guntur district, as detailed hereunder:
The Additional Advocate General, HC of AP, Hyderabad has opined on 4.5.2000 that the said society have furnished the lands possessed by them registered in favour of the Societies before the date of consideration of their applications, there may not be any objection to take into consideration of the lands produced by the societies for issue of NOCs. Accordingly NOCs also issued to these societies.
FDR of Rs. 5.00 lakhs and land are the two major conditions. In case of lands various court judgments and legal opinion holds it enough, if these conditions are met with on the date of consideration of the application in the same analogy, the SLSC in its meeting held on 20.11.2000 felt that since the MNR Trust fulfilled the conditions before the date of consideration NOC may be issued.
Since the factual position existing before issue of NOC to this society still remain the same the committee resolved that it will not be appropriate on its part to take a different decision in the case and hence resolved not to cancel the No Objection certificate issued to the MNR Educational Trust, Hyderabad in Hyderabad East Revenue Division of Rangareddy district.
14. Sri Balakrishna Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent after reiterating the contentions raised in the counter-affidavit argued that as ruled by this Court in Govt. of A.P v St. Mary's Educational Society case (supra) as also the judgment of this Court in P.No. 5343 of 1999 wherein it was clearly ruled that all the conditions stipulated should be satisfied by the applicants at the time of granting recognition by NCTE and in view of the settled legal position, the issue of FDR furnished by the 4th respondent earlier prior to the issuance of NOC is no longer open for debate, the appellant cannot have any locus standi to raise the said issue. He would also submit that the appellant has not approached this Court with clean hands and has not disclosed that it was not having the title deeds on the date of making the application. Sri Krishnamurty would farther urge that the managing trustee of the 4th respondent pursuant to the request made by the SLSC appeared before the said committee and furnished the requisite information through queries put to him and that the committee after satisfying itself about the genuineness of the case of the 4 respondent resolved not to cancel the NOC already issued to it and, therefore, the decision taken by the SLSC cannot be interfered with by this Court at the instance of the appellant-petitioner who has not approached this Court with clean hands.
15. We see merit and substance in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the 4th respondent as also the submissions made by the learned Advocate General supporting the decision taken by the SLSC not to cancel the NOC issued to the 4th respondent. As rightly pointed out by the learned single judge, the 4th respondent was granted NOC after considering the recommendations of the SLSC and, therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity in the order impugned. In our opinion, the submission of the demand drafts etc., are all matters relating to the procedural aspects and the State Government was satisfied that the submission of demand drafts at a later stage would not disable the fourth respondent from claiming the recognition and that the act of granting NOC is a pure administrative act as held by the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment supra. The SLSC after being satisfied only issued NOC to the 4th respondent through proceedings dated 30.12.2000.
16. In an identical case a Division Bench of this Court consisting of S.R. Nayak, J., and S. Ananda Reddy, J in Govt. of A.P. v. St. Mary's Educational Society (supra) has observed:
Therefore, it cannot be said that the State Government's jurisdiction to grant permission for establishing educational institutions including the institution offering or intending to offer a course or training in teacher education is affected in any way insofar as it relates to making of an assessment for providing such educational facilities to the people in a locality. However, the State Government's role after the enactment of the NCTE Act is mainly restricted to the aspect relating to the need for establishment of institutions offering or intending to offer a course or training in teacher education. In other words, the State Government is till entitled to make an assessment about the need for establishment of such institutions offering or intending to offer a course or training in teacher education, In that view of the matter, the Finding recorded by the learned single Judge that the State Government's jurisdiction and authority in that regard is in no way denuded by the subsequent NCE Act is unexceptionable. However, under the guise of assessing the need for establishment of such institutions, the State Government cannot go into the relative merits of the applicant at the stage of consideration of the application for grant of no objection certificate and limit the number of applications to the number of institutions determined by the State Government in a locality regardless of the fact that an applicant who is denied No Objection Certificate has fulfilled all the norms and conditions specified under G.O.Ms. No. 398, the assessment of relative merits the applicants for grant of recognition fails within the exclusive domain of the NCTE by virtue of the power conferred upon it by Section 14 of the NCTE Act. The NCTE alone is entitled to scrutinise as to whether an institution which intends to offer a course or training in teacher education has adequate financial resource accommodation, library, qualified staff, laboratory and fulfils such other conditions required for proper functioning of the institutions as may be specified by the regulations framed under the NCTE Act. Any contrary view would offend the very object and scheme of the NCTE Act and the authority conferred by it in the NCTE.
17. The Bench disposed of writ appeal with the following directions:
(1) The NCTE alone is entitled to assess the relative merits of the applicants for recognition and it is not permissible for the State Government to assess relative merits of the applicants for "No Objection Certificate" at the stage of consideration of the applications for grant of No Objection Certificates. The State Government is bound to grant No objection certificate to those applications who fulfil the norms and conditions specified in G.O.Ms. No. 398. Education, dated 4.12.1997.
(2) The NCTE, Southern Regional Committee, Bangalore, while granting recognition under Section 14(3)(a) of the NCTE Act, shall grant recognition only such number of institutions, which the State Government of Andhra Pradesh has fixed
18. One of us (V.V.S. Rao, J.) in St. Mary's Educational Society, Giddalur, Prakasam Dist. v. Govt. of A.P., , has taken the view that NOC is primarily concerned with the verification and satisfaction of the State Government as to the need for establishment of B.Ed./Pandit Training Institutions. The learned Judge has observed in para 15 as under:
After considering (Forty Second) Amendment Act, 1976, the legislative entry 'education' was included in the concurrent list (List III in the VII Schedule to Constitution) as Entry 25 in List III. This enabled the Union parliament to enact NCTE Act under Article 246(2) of the Constitution of India. By virtue of Sub-article (3) of Article 246, the State Act insofar as it deals with the teacher education system is subject to the law as enacted in NCTE Act. Therefore, in my considered opinion, no objection certificate is primarily concerned with the verification and satisfaction of the State Government as to the need for establishment of B.Ed./Pandit Training Institutes. To subject all applications to a preliminary verification at the stage of giving no objection certificate, the Government is entitled to lav down conditions, which may serve as Guidelines for the State Level Standing Committee. If these guidelines are contrary to the provisions of NCTE Act, the no objection certificate cannot be refused to the applicant on the ground that a sale deed evidencing provision of two hectares of land is not enclosed. Such an eventuality would result in divesting the Regional Committee, (which has to satisfy itself after obtaining such other particulars as it may consider necessary under Section 14 of NCTE Act as the accommodation for college) of its power under the said provision. Further, as mentioned above while rejecting application for recognition, the Regional Committee is under an obligation record reasons for rejecting which can only be after giving an opportunity to the concerned applicant for making representation. Whereas in the Government order there is no provision for providing with reasonable opportunity of making representation when no objection certificate is rejected.
19. In Writ Appeal No. 1825 of 1999, a Division Bench of this Court consisting of M.S. Liberhan, CJ (as his Lordship then was) and Goda Raghuram, J in an identical matter has observed:
The State under the provisions of the Constitution is obligated to provide education to one and all and when it is not in a position to execute that obligation from out of its own resources, we fail to comprehend the stance taken by the appellants-State in not granting No Objection Certificate for establishing an educational institution by raising hyper-technical objections and devising ways and means to scuttle the efforts of private parties that are coming forward to fulfil the constitutional need of spreading educational and stamping out illiteracy which is right now the demand of the nation.
In the instant case, the condition of production of registered sale deed evidencing possession of land has substantially been complied with by the respondent-petitioner, who has at the tune of submission of application for grant of No Objection Certificate for establishing an educational institution, enclosed an unregistered sale deed showing his possession over the land, and subsequently in order to overcome the technicality of the earlier sale deed being not a registered one has produced another registered sale deed showing his possession over the land, which is not disputed by the appellant-State. Nothing has been brought to our notice to show that the directions issued by the learned single Judge have adversely affected the rights of either the appellant-State or of any person in any manner whatsoever.
Thus, in the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we neither find any ground to condone the delay nor any error in the order of the learned single Judge which has only directed the appellant-State to consider the application of the respondent-petitioner for grant of No Objection Certificate for establishing an educational institution in the light of the observations made therein.
20. B.S.A. Swamy, J in W.P.No. 5343 of 1999 has also taken the same view while considering an order of rejection for grant of No Objection Certificate. The learned Judge held:
Questioning the orders of rejection for no-objection certificate for establishment of a college of education in Mandhani Revenue Mandal on the ground that the petitioner-Sadhana Educational Society failed to produce the title deeds relating to five acres of land before the expiry of the last date mentioned in the notification i.e. 31.3.1998, the petitioner filed this writ petition.
This matter is no more res integra. This Court has taken a view that, though the intending societies failed to submit title deeds before the expiry of the date, in the event that it is shown that they have filed the deeds before the date of the consideration of their application, it is sufficient compliance of the notification and their cases have to be considered without insisting that the title deeds were not filed within the time stipulated. Following the judgment, the order impugned in this writ petition is quashed and a direction is given to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner-society for issuance of no objection certificate so as to enable it to establish the college within four weeks from today.
21. Another Division Bench of this Court consisting of S.B. Sinha, CJ (as his Lordship then was) and V.V.S Rao, J in W.P.No. 25037 of 1999 (Manair Educational Academy, Karimnagar v. Govt. of A.P.) has observed that Regulation 5(e) of the Regulations made by NCTE cannot be interpreted as empowering the State Government to issue NOC mechanically in a routine manner to all the applicants who intend to approach NCTE for recognition. The same would be contrary to the very purpose for which the State Government is empowered to issue NOC. In this case, the petitioner-society for the purpose of establishing a college of teacher training institution applied for issuance of NOC. The SLSC rejected the application for issuance of NOC. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner therein that Regulation 5 is contrary to the provisions of 1993 Act and that for entertaining an application, jurisdiction could not have been conferred on the State Government under Section 14 of the Act inasmuch as Section 14 confers power only upon the Regional Committee before whom application is required to be made. The learned Additional Advocate General contended that obtaining of NOC is pre-requisite for grant of permission. Chief Justice Sinha, speaking for the Bench held:
The regulations with which we are concerned are, in our opinion, are referable to Sections 12, 14(1) read with Section 32(2)(e) and (f) of the NCTE Act The Act itself requires an application to be made in the manner as determined by the regulations in regard to the form. Regulation 5 precisely deals with the manner of making an application and provides that every application shall be accompanied by No Objection Certificate by the State. On a plain reading of the relevant provisions we must reject the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that regulation 5(e) cannot be held to be ultra vires the Act nor it is unconstitutional. The submission is devoid of any merits. We may also reiterate that the G.O.Ms.No. 398 which provides guidelines for constitution of the State Level Committee as well as guidelines to be followed by the said Committee in issuing No Objection certificate to applicants. These guidelines are only intended to inject transparency in the decision making by the State Level Committee. There is nothing in the Government Order, which is contrary to the Act or the regulations made thereunder.
22. In the above case, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner therein has also placed strong reliance on the Judgment of the Kamataka High Court in Rashtreeya Seva Peetha Basavanagudi v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2000 Kant. 91, wherein a learned single Judge of the Kamataka High Court has taken the view that the incorporation of Regulation 5(e) in the Central Regulations is ultra vires the powers of the National Council and accordingly the learned Judge struck down the said clause. However, the said decision was reversed by a Division Bench of the Kamataka High Court in National Council for Teacher Education v. Sri Jachant (unreported decision in W.A. No. 2643 of 1999 dated 9.10.2000) by a Bench comprising the Acting Chief Justice Sri Ashok Bhan and Sri Justice Gururajan. The Division Bench held:
In our opinion, when any provision in a legislation covered by the field in relation to entries in List 1 and List III, say like education, is considered by the Court, it must resort to harmonious construction. The Court cannot lose sight of the fact that Indian Constitution has federal polity wherein the legislative powers are distributed among the Union and member States. Though there is a preponderance of unitary characters in the Constitution a delicate balance is to be maintained as otherwise the basic principles of democracy and de-centralization would be defeated. Under the A.P. Education Act, it is the State, which has to decide the desirability of having a B.Ed. College. Likewise, unless a B.Ed, course offered by a college is recognised by a University to which it is affiliated no purpose would be served by merely granting recognition to a B.Ed., college which is not affiliated to University or whose course is not recognised by the concerned University. Keeping these matters in view and having regard to the provisions of the NCTE Act which are different from the Medical Council of India Act, Dental Council Act, NCTE Act we are convinced that regulation 5(e) of the regulations does not suffer from any constitutional infirmity.
23. It was further held:
We have examined these reasons for rejection in the light of the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms. No. 398 as well as regulations made by the Council. We are not sitting as an appellate authority over the decisions of the State Level Committee. No material is placed before us to show that the decision suffers from any perversity. It is the fundamental principle of administrative law that when on the given material the decision making authority determines the facts and acts on such facts, unless there is misdirection the decision cannot be brought under the doctrine of illegality. We fail to understand as to how the petitioner could be said to have complied with the various guidelines laid down by the State Government, which is required to give a No Objection Certificate.
24. On a consideration of the above decisions, we are of the opinion that the State Government is entitled to make an assessment about the need for establishment of educational institutions and the Government's jurisdiction and authority in that regard is in no way curtailed by the provisions of NCTE Act. However, the assessment of relative merits of the applicants for grant of recognition falls within the exclusive domain of NCTE Act by virtue of the power conferred upon it by Section 14 of NCTE Act, which alone is entitled to scrutinise as to whether an institution which intends to offer a course or training in teacher training education has adequate financial resources and other infrastructure facilities etc., as may be specified from time to time by the regulations framed under the NCTW Act. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the decision taken by the SLSC not to cancel the NOC already granted to the 4th respondent society is perfectly legal and valid. The appellant-writ petitioner is not entitled to the relief prayed for in the writ petition and consequently, the writ appeal is also liable to be dismissed.
25. In our opinion, as on the date of consideration of the applications, namely, when the State Level Standing Committee met on 20.11.2000, the 4th respondent fulfilled the condition of submitting Fixed Deposit Receipt for Rs. 5.00 lakhs drawn on Andhra Bank and also filed the documents relating to possession of land to the extent of two hectares of land. The SLSC came to the conclusion that the 4th respondent fulfilled the necessary conditions and accordingly resolved not to cancel the No Objection Certificate issued to the 4th respondent on the ground that as on the date of consideration, the 4th respondent has complied with the conditions stipulated. The Writ Petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by the learned single Judge observing that the act of grant of NOC is a pure administrative act and the ultimate authority is the third respondent which has to scrutinise the applications received from the State Government and it is for the third respondent-council to consider all these matters and take a decision. We are in agreement with the view taken by the learned single Judge.
26. It was argued by the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent that the appellant has not disclosed the fact that they did not submit the title deeds for two hectares of land which is one of the basic conditions on the date of their making application for issuance of NOC and that the land was purchased by a registered sale deed only on 11-7-2001 and this has been brought to the notice of the MRO only on 26.7.2001 which was in response to the information sought by the District Collector who in turn was requested by the 2nd respondent to conduct necessary verification. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the 4th respondent this aspect of appellant not having title to the land as on the date of making application was not disclosed in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. This apart, against the refusal by the respondent to grant the permission to the appellant for establishment of the college, there is an alternative remedy of appeal available by way of approaching the Appeal Committee, NCTE, New Delhi. Though all these facts have been specifically raised by the 4th respondent in the counter-affidavit, there was no reply to the same. The appellant having failed to avail of the alternative remedy available to it under law, the writ petition is not maintainable on that ground too.
27. It is well settled proposition of law that it is the duty of a person invoking the special writ jurisdiction of the Court to make a full and true disclosure of all relevant facts. He should not suppress any facts. The applicant for a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution must come in the manner prescribed and must be perfectly frank and open with the Court. If he conceals something, which is relevant from the Court, the Court will refuse to go into the matter. The appellant in this case who is bound to make a full and true disclosure all relevant facts has not done so. The appellant has not been as frank and candid as he is under a duty to be and has suppressed materials facts relevant to the issues involved. We are, therefore, of the opinion that it is disentitled to any relief from this Court on this ground. The appellant was not justified in doing so.
28. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that there are no grounds, which warrant interference by this Court. The Writ Appeal, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.