Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shiksha Bharti Educational Society ... vs National Council For Teachers' ... on 3 December, 2013
Equivalent citations: AIR 2014 (NOC) 81 (P. & H.)
Bench: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Augustine George Masih
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Letters Patent Appeal No.2022 of 2013 (O&M)
DATE OF DECISION: 03.12.2013
Shiksha Bharti Educational Society (Regd.)
.....Appellant
versus
National Council for Teachers' Education and another
.....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Present: Mr.R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate with
Mr.Samrat Malik, Advocate for the appellant
..
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE: (Oral) Admit.
The recognition of the appellant-educational institute was withdrawn by the Regional Director, National Council for Teachers' Education in terms of orders dated 28.1.2013 which was assailed by the appellant in CWP No.6395 of 2013. This writ petition was dismissed on 9.7.2013 with costs on the ground that appellate remedy was available under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the order which had been passed under Section 17 of the said Act. In fact, the respondent No.1 took the objection in this behalf, but it was the insistence of the counsel for the petitioner which resulted in the order stating that a false submission had been made in the petition that no other remedy of revision or appeal was available, even though the statute clearly provided so. This was the reason for imposition of the costs apart from the fact that even when pointed out there was insistence on the part of the counsel for the petitioner to proceed with the matter. Chand Parkash 2013.12.04 15:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-2022-2013 -2-
It is only thereafter that the appellant approached the appellate authority who refused to condone the delay as it was found that the delay spent in the writ petition could not be excluded once the High Court had opined that the petition was based on incorrect facts. The order of the appellate authority dated 30.10.2013 was assailed in CWP No.25477 of 2013, but the petition was dismissed holding that the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 would not be available to the appellant on account of prosecution of the writ petition, since the petition itself was stated to have been based on incorrect averments.
Learned senior counsel for the appellant contends before us that the result of the impugned order is that the appellant has been left remedyless. He submits that for the averment made in the earlier writ petition that no appellate remedy was available, the appellant has already been penalised with costs of `50,000/- and the exuberance of the counsel then appearing for the appellant could not result in denial of any remedy whatsoever to the appellant as a consequence thereof.
We are in agreement with the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the reason why the earlier writ petition was dismissed was because there was an appellate remedy available. No doubt, the appellant had averred in that petition that there was no alternative remedy, while such a remedy was available, but even on being pointed out so unfortunately insisted on further prosecuting the petition on the basis that the order is patently illegal.
We are of the view that the penalty of `50,000/- costs imposed on the appellant, which is stated to have been already deposited, would suffice to penalize the appellant for this conduct and Chand Parkash 2013.12.04 15:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-2022-2013 -3- thereafter the appellant should be entitled to a decision on merits in the appeal by excluding the period spent in the litigation in the High Court.
We are sure both the appellant and the counsel would now be wiser.
The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned order of the learned single Judge dated 20.11.2013 and of the appellate authority dated 31.10.2013 are set aside with a direction to the appellate authority to decide the appeal of the appellant on merits.
Since the respondents were not even issued notice either in appeal or by the learned single Judge and the matter was still at the admission stage, we have not considered it necessary to issue notice to the respondents herein.
( SANJAY KISHAN KAUL )
CHIEF JUSTICE
03.12.2013 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
parkash* JUDGE
Chand Parkash
2013.12.04 15:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document