Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. Rule.

3. The brief facts, to be noticed and as stated in the writ petition, for disposal of the present writ petition are that the petitioner is an unaided and self financed institution which was established by a registered society with the object of imparting teacher training courses. As per the petition, with a view to commence new B.Ed teacher training course the petitioner submitted requisite application dated 10.05.2008 with the Northern Regional Committee (hereinafter referred to as "NRC"), Respondent No.2, on 09.06.2008 for seeking recognition under Section 14 of the NCTE Act, 1993. At the time of submitting the said application the land, on which the college building was constructed, was in the name of the Chairperson of the society sponsoring the institution and he had given the land to the society on lease for a period of 99 years. This was in consonance with the requirements of the NCTE Regulations, 2006, dated 13.01.2006. The new Regulations were notified on 10.12.2007 by which the requirement of land was changed and land on private lease was done away with. The Chairman of the petitioner had constructed the building on the land in question much prior to the notification of the new Regulations, 2007, and accordingly the lease deed was executed in favour of the society. However after submission of the application with NRC on 09.06.2008, the petitioner became aware of the new Regulations and with utmost promptitude the chairman transferred the land in favour of the society by executing a registered Gift Deed on 03.07.2008. It is the case of the petitioner that even before NRC could raise any objection in the application of the petitioner, the petitioner submitted the registered gift deed dated 03.07.2008 with NRC alongwith other documents on 16.07.2008. Finding the application of the petitioner complete in all respects, NRC issued Letter of Intent [LOI] on 04.08.2008 in favour of the petitioner requiring the petitioner to give unconditional consent for physical verification of the college. The petitioner submitted the requisite consent for inspection with NRC on 07.08.2008. Instead of conducting the inspection of the college the NRC vide its letter dated 03.10.2008 sought clarification from the petitioner with regard to submission of the land conversion certificate.

4. Mr.Sanjay Sharawat, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that by a letter dated 13.10.2008 the petitioner submitted the land conversion certificate with NRC as per its requirement. Thereafter the NRC was obliged to conduct inspection, however, since NRC did not proceed ahead with the matter. The petitioner was forced to file W.P.(C)No.8749/2008 before this Court which was allowed vide order dated 10.12.2008 on the basis of a statement made by Counsel for the respondents to the effect that the application of the petitioner shall be processed and decided as per regulations within a period of 90 days. Counsel further submits that the NRC considered the case of the petitioner alongwith similar other cases in its meeting held from 28.02.2009 to 01.03.2009 and by pointing out three deficiencies, which were never pointed out earlier, it decided to close the file without even issuing a mandatory show cause notice as contemplated under section 14 of the NCTE Act, 1993. Pursuant to the said decision, the NRC rejected the application of the petitioner vide formal order dated 12.03.2009 on three grounds, which were never raised earlier by the NRC. Even otherwise after issuance of LOI the NRC was obliged to conduct an inspection of the college as it is mandatory as per the NCTE Regulations. Counsel next submits that no show cause notice under section 14 of the NCTE Act was issued before passing the said order. Counsel contends that being aggrieved by the said order dated 12.03.2009 the petitioner filed a Civil Writ Petition, being CWP No.4784 of 2009, before the Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court. In the said writ petition notice was issued to the respondents and they were directed to file their counter affidavit. The said writ petition of the petitioner before the Jaipur Bench of Rajasthan High Court was adjourned from time to time. Counsel also contends that in the said writ petition the respondents did not take the objection which has now been taken by the NCTE in the impugned order.

 The institution is required to submit land conversion certificate issued by revenue department.

It is therefore requested to clarify the aforesaid points duly supported with requisite documents within 21 days from the date of issue of this letter positively, so that your application could be further processed. In case the above required documents are not received in this office within the stipulated period then the responsibility will be yours.

26. It is also the case of the petitioner that finding the application of the petitioner complete in all respects, the NRC issued the Letter of Intent "LOI" dated 4.8.2008, requiring the petitioner to give unconditional consent for physical verification of the college, which the petitioner consented. No inspection was carried out, instead, vide letter dated 3.10.2008 the respondent sought clarification from the petitioner with regard to the submission of the land conversion certificate. On 13.10.2008 the land conversion certificate was also submitted to the respondent. Since no inspection was being carried out the petitioner filed WP(C)No.8749/2008 which was allowed on the basis of a statement made by counsel for the respondent that application of the petitioner would be processed and decided within 90 days. On 12th March, 2009, the application of the petitioner was rejected. Aggrieved by the order of rejection, a writ petition was filed before the Rajasthan High Court which was subsequently dismissed, as the petitioner had not availed of the alternate remedy of filing an appeal. A statutory appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed, which led to the filing of Writ Petition No.4094/2010, which was allowed on 13.7.2010. The matter was remanded back to the NRC to take a decision within a period of 90 days. The order of the learned Single Judge was challenged by filing an LPA which was allowed on 20.4.2011, however, a review filed by the petitioner herein the same was allowed on 25.5.2011 and a direction was issued to the respondent to re-consider the case of the petitioner. While allowing the review petition and remanding the matter back the following directions were issued by the Division Bench: