Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hargovind Laxminarayan Samaj Kalyan ... vs National Council For Teachers ... on 27 June, 2013
Author: M.A. Siddiqui
Bench: M.A. Siddiqui
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
Writ Petition No : 15244 Of 2010
Hargovind Laxminarayan Samaj & Another
V/s
National Council For Teachers Education & Others
Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon.
Hon'ble Shri Justice M.A. Siddiqui
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Abhinav
Singh Thakur, counsel for the petitioners.
Shri K.K. Singh, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2.
Shri Rahul Jain, learned Dy. Advocate General for respondent
No.3.
Shri Kamlesh Dwivedi, learned counsel for respondent No.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
27.6.2013 Challenging order Annexure P-1 dated 11.4.2009 passed by the Western Regional Committee and the order Annexure P-2 dated 18.8.2009 passed by the National Council for Teachers' Education, withdrawing the recognition granted and the action of the competent authority in rejecting the appeal, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner institute.
2. Petitioner No.1 society is registered under the M.P. Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973. It has been established for the object of carrying out educational activities by establishing educational institute and accordingly an institute namely the H.L. Agrawal College of Education has been established in Betul. Amongst other, this institute is engaged in 2 imparting education, i.e. teachers' training (B.Ed. Course). In furtherance to the same and for carrying out activities of imparting education, as required under National Council for Teachers' Education, the institute and the society in question submitted applications to the competent statutory authority namely respondent Nos.1 & 2 for grant of recognition. It is not disputed that the Western Regional Committee in Teachers' Education granted recognition to the institute in question for starting B.Ed. Course for 1 year duration initially for academic session 2005-2006 with annual intake of 100 students and thereafter the provisional recognition continued upto the year 2006-2007 and finally vide Annexure P-5 on 8.5.2007 permanent recognition in accordance to provisions of Section 14 of the National Council of Teacher's Education Act was granted. In the said recognition granted, one of the condition stipulated vide clause (d) reads as under :-
"(d) The institution shall shift to its own premises within three years from the date of recognition (In case the course is started in rented premises.)"
3. It is pointed out that the institute was in the process of constructing a building, for enforcing the condition as indicated hereinabove, it was emphasized by Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel that institute was making all efforts in completing the building within three years, as stipulated in the communication Annexure P-5, when to its surprise vide Annexure P-6 dated 28.2.2009 a show-cause notice was given whereby action was proposed to be taken for withdrawal/cancellation of the recognition granted. In the show-cause notice, two grounds were indicated on the basis of which action was proposed to be taken. Shri tiwari, learned Senior Advocate 3 refers to the two grounds indicated in the show-cause notice issued under Section 14 of the NCTE Act, which reads as under :
"1. The institute has inadequate land (21600 sq.ft.) buit up area 6480 sq.ft. As against required land (2500 sq.mt.) and built up area (1500 sq.mt.) as per the NCTE regulation 2007.
2. Only three respectively staff members appointed by the University"
4. Shri Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel further points out that in its reply to the same, petitioner institute explained the position and finally the council vide Annexure P-1 dated 11.4.2009 cancelled the recognition and for the first time a new ground was indicated in the cancellation order Annexure P-1, the ground indicated was that the institute has failed to shift to its own building within the stipulated time.
5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid an appeal was filed which was also rejected vide Annexure P-2 and, therefore, this writ petition, refers to the fact as has been stated hereinabove.
6. Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel made a two fold submission, his first submission was that the show-cause notice Annexure P-6 was issued to the petitioner's institute under Section 14 of the NCTE Act, 1993. As indicated hereinabove, two grounds were indicated as defects/defaults based on which action was proposed to be taken. Shri Tiwari emphasized that both these defects were explained and material in support thereof was produced by the institute. Even though it seems that the council was satisfied with the explanation given, but the impugned action was taken on a totally new ground i.e. failing of the institution in shifting to a new 4 building within the stipulated period. Shri Tiwari submits that this ground did not form the basis for taking action, as indicated in the show-cause notice. Accordingly, it was submitted that the act of respondents in cancelling/withdrawing the recognition on a ground which did not form the basis for initiating action by the show-cause notice is unsustainable.
7. That apart the second ground canvassed by Shri Tiwari was to the effect that now recognition is cancelled or withdrawn on the ground that institute has failed in shifting to its own building. Shri Tiwari, leaned Senior Advocate took us through the recognition granted vide Annexure P-5 dated 8.5.2007, condition No.(d) indicated therein and submitted that on 8.5.2007 three years time was granted to the institute for shifting to their own premises. The three years period would expire only on 8.5.2010 and the impugned action was taken on 10.4.2009 i.e. more than a year prior to the period of 3 years being over, this is also impermissible. It is submitted by Shri Tiwari that the institute had taken steps for construction of a new building and he produced the material before this Court to show that construction was over and the institute was making all efforts to shift to its own building within the stipulated period but before it could do so the impugned action was taken. Accordingly, Shri Tiwari argues that action has been taken contrary to law and, therefore, prays for interference.
8. Respondent Nos.1 & 2 represented by Shri K.K. Singh, have filed detailed written arguments and they have tried to justify their action by showing that, as the institute in question has failed in shifting to a new premises and as the condition stipulated in order of recognition is not fulfilled 5 the impugned action is taken. Shri Singh tried to emphasize that the period of three years contained in clause (d) of the order Annexure P-5 is to be reckoned from initial date of recognition i.e. in the year 2005 and not from 8.5.2007 when recognition vide Annexure P-5 was granted. Accordingly, he submits that impugned action is proper. The institute has failed to comply with the requirement of law as contemplated under the NCTE Act and, therefore, the action taken is proper.
9. Shri Tiwari refutes the aforesaid and took us through the documents and papers available on record, particularly the recognition provisional granted vide Annexure P-4 dated 27.6.2005 and emphasized that in this order of recognition no such condition, as was stipulated in clause (d) of Annexure P-5 dated 8.5.2007 was indicated and, therefore, justification now given by respondents cannot be accepted. He submits that the period of three years for shifting to a new building has to be reckoned from 8.5.2007 and not on any other date.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. In the written argument submitted by respondents, detailed submissions have been made with regard to statutory provisions, as are contained in NCTE Act, and law laid down by the Supreme Court with regard to the strict compliance with the mandatory requirement. There is no dispute in accepting the aforesaid submission made in the written argument, but the question is, whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the respondents have acted in accordance to law or Shri Tiwari, learned Senior 6 Advocate is right in contending that the impugned action is arbitrary and a whimsical decision is taken ignoring the requirement of law.
11. As already indicated hereinabove, Shri Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate made his submission only on two counts, the first ground canvassed is that when show-cause notice Annexure P-6 was issued to the institute, only two grounds were indicated, the reason indicated in Annexure P-6 are that the institute is having inadequate land and buildup area and that only three staff members appointed by the university and working. All these defects pointed out by the council in the show-cause notice Annexure P-6, the institute is seen to have submitted various explanation supported by documents and therefore, when these explanation were considered in the order Annexure P-1 dated 11.4.2009 in para 5 & 6 it is seen that the council accepted the explanation and did not pass any order with regard to defects pointed out in the show- cause notice, on the contrary took action on a totally different ground i.e. institute has failed to shift to its own building within the stipulated period. That being so, Shri Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate is right in contending that the ground for taking the proposed action as indicated in the show-cause notice and ground for taking action, as indicated in impugned order are entirely different, the same is in violation of principles of natural justice in as much as prior or proper opportunity to explain the deficiency is not granted to the institute.
12. When a show-cause notice was issued and when certain defects or defaults were pointed out in the show-cause notice then the respondent council, which discharges statutory functions in accordance to requirement of 7 the National Council of Teachers' Education Act, is required to an act in accordance to law. After considering the explanation of the petitioner's institute the council was free either to accept or reject the same. In the present case this was not done, instead a totally new ground which did not form part of show-cause notice was considered and the impugned action was taken. That being so, in this case the impugned action is taken without proper notice and without granting proper opportunity to give its say, to the petitioners on this count alone the entire action stands vitiated.
13. That apart, the second ground canvassed also has much force. Even though initially the provisional recognition was granted to the institute vide Annexure P-4 on 27.6.2005 for the academic session 2005-2006, but a perusal of the document goes to show that in this document there is noting to indicate that the institute was to shift to its new building within any fixed period of time. On the contrary material available on record indicates that when recognition was sought for in the year 2005-2006, the institute indicated that it is functioning in a rented building, which was been taken on lease for 30 years. The recognition was granted by the council after being satisfied with these aspect of the matter and it seems that finally when recognition was granted vide Annexure P-5 on 8.5.2007 the stipulation as indicated vide clause (d) was that institute shall shift to a new building within 3 years. Once on 8.5.2007 the institute were granted 3 years time to shift to a new building, then again adverse action cannot be taken for cancelling or withdrawing the recognition on the ground that institute is failed to comply with the condition of shifting to new building, the time limit given for shifting would expire on 8 8.5.2010 and as the impugned action was taken much before the said date, which is contrary to terms and condition stipulated in Annexure P-5, the impugned action stands vitiated on this count also.
14. Even though, during the course of hearing Shri K.K. Singh tried to emphasize that appellate committee has taken note of all these factors, but on a perusal of order Annexure P-2 we see that the appellate committee has not adverted to consider all these questions properly. Accordingly in the facts and circumstances, as are indicated hereinabove, we are of the considered view that action taken against petitioner institute cannot be upheld by this Court. Action has been taken contrary to provisions of law and requirement of the principle of natural justice.
15. In view of above this petition is allowed, impugned orders Annexure P-1 and P-2 are quashed and respondents are granted liberty to proceed afresh in accordance to law.
16. With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed and disposed of, no order as to costs.
(RAJENDRA MENON) (M.A. SIDDIQUI)
JUDGE JUDGE
ss/-