N. K. PATIL, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner in this petition is an Education Society. Assailing the legality and validity of the impugned order passed by the first respondent dated 26th February, 2003 vide Annexure-D and the order passed by the second respondent dated 28th May, 2003 vide annexure-E, the petitioner has presented the instant writ petition. Further, the petitioner has sought for a direction, directing the first respondent to grant recognition in respect of the petitioner-Society to run the elementary course. ( 2 ) THE petitioner claiming to be a registered Society under the societies Registration Act, has been running the Teachers' Education institution from the academic year 1969-70 in pursuance of the permission granted by the Competent Authority dated 18th December, 1969 vide Annexure-A. ( 3 ) WHEN things stood thus, in view of the amendment brought to the national Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (Act 73 of 1993) (hereinafter called as "ncte Act, 1993"), which came into effect from 17th August, 1995, the petitioner filed an application for recognition as an "existing institution" to the first respondent. The application filed by the petitioner had come up for consideration before the first respondent and the first respondent has rejected the same. Feeling aggrieved by the said rejection order passed by the first respondent, the petitioner has filed the appeal before the second respondent and the second respondent has allowed the appeal and remanded the matter for reconsideration to the first respondent. After remand, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner calling for some information and the petitioner has filed its reply. After considering the material on record and the reply submitted by the petitioner, the first respondent herein has passed the impugned order vide Annexure-D, rejecting the request of the petitioner on 26th February, 2003. Feeling aggrieved by the said order passed by the first respondent, the petitioner has, again, filed an appeal before the second respondent and the second respondent, after considering the material on record and the order passed by the first respondent, has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner by its order dated 28th May, 2003 vide Annexure-E. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned orders passed by both the authorities, namely, respondents 1 and 2, as stated supra, the petitioner has presented the instant writ petition. ( 4 ) THE principal ground urged by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that, the petitioner has produced several records and given detailed reply to the first respondent and the respondents have not taken into consideration any of them and rejected the same, without taking into consideration the relevant provisions of the Act. ( 5 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, the only question for consideration before the first respondent was as to whether, the petitioner-Institution was an "existing Institution" as on the date of coming in force of the NCTE Act, 1993 namely, 17th August, 1995 for running the TCH course and this aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration by the first respondent. Further, he vehemently submitted that, the second respondent-Appellate Authority has also rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner and confirmed the order passed by the first respondent stating that, the petitioner has not produced NOC from the State Government for grant of recognition to the said institution as 'existing Institution' as per the requirement of the relevant regulations of the NCTE Act, 1993. Therefore, both the authorities have committed an error and illegality in passing the impugned orders. To substantiate his submission, he has taken me through the additional documents produced by him in this petition vide annexures-O, P and Q and the statement of admissions and result sheet pertaining to first year TCH Examination during May 1996 alleged to have been issued by the Karnataka Secondary Education Examination board and submitted that, these are all the materials made available before the first respondent, but there is no reference regarding this aspect of the matter in the order passed by the first respondent. Therefore, both the authorities are not justified in rejecting the request of the petitioner and the same is contrary to the material on record and the mandatory provisions of the Act. Hence, the impugned order passed by both the authorities are liable to be rejected. ( 6 ) PER contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, inter alia, contended and substantiated the well-considered orders passed by both the authorities viz. , respondents 1 and 2. Hence, the impugned order passed by both the authorities are liable to be rejected. ( 6 ) PER contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, inter alia, contended and substantiated the well-considered orders passed by both the authorities viz. , respondents 1 and 2. To substantiate the said submission, he has drawn my attention to the reply given by the petitioner vide Annexure-N to the clarification sought for by the first respondent in respect of seven items wherein, the petitioner has produced additional documents. In the said reply, the petitioner has given reply for Points 3, 6 and 7. It is significant to note that, the petitioner has not clarified and substantiated the points for which clarification is sought. Further, he vehemently submitted that, along with the objections filed by the respondents before this Court, he has produced the letter dated 15th June, 2002 in No. ED 213 PTI 2001 vide annexure-R1 addressed to the petitioner by the Under Secretary to the government, Education Department. In the said letter, it has been specifically stated that, it is a fact that, the petitioner has obtained permission to start TCH institute for the academic year 1969-70 but, thereafter, there is no evidence to show that, the TCH College has actually functioned and that the same was in existence as on the date of coming into force of the NCTE Act, 1993, viz. , 17th August, 1995. Therefore, in the absence of any documentary evidence to show that, the tch College has been functioning as on the date of coming into force of the NCTE Act, 1993 and that, the same has been functioning continuously without any break, the TCH institution has to be treated as non-existent or non-functioning and closed. Therefore, the Appellate authority, taking into consideration all the materials available on record and the fact that, the petitioner has failed to comply by producing the documents called for by the first respondent, has rejected the request of the petitioner on the ground that, the petitioner-Institution has failed to substantiate that, the institution was offering the course continuously before the establishment of the NCTE Act, 1993 and was functioning as on the date of promulgation of the NCTE Act, 1993 which came into effect from 17th August, 1995. Further, he submitted that, in view of the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the authorities against the petitioner, the petitioner cannot seek any relief invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court as envisaged under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed in limine. ( 7 ) I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents for considerable length of time. After careful perusal of the entire material available on record and the orders passed by the respondents, it is seen from the records that, both the authorities have passed the well-considered orders. Therefore, I do not find any error of law as such committed by the respondents in not considering the request of the petitioner to give declaration that, as on the date of promulgation of the NCTE Act, 1993, viz. , 17th August, 1995, the petitioner-Institution was an "existing institution". Further, it is significant to note that, the first respondent has called for details from the petitioner-Institution which are as follows. "1. List of admission made with address of the students for the academic sessions 1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96. 2. Approval obtained from DSERT / State Government for admissions every year (from 1991-1996 ). 3. Admission numbers of the students of results obtained every year (from 1991-1996 ). 4. Details of results obtained every year (from 1991-1996 ). 5. As per records, the application of the institution was submitted on 22-11-2001 to SRC whereas as per the NCTE Regulations application has to be submitted before 16-2-1996. The reasons for delay in submission of application may be given. 0. Details about the President, Secretary and members of the management from the time of establishment of the Indira Gandhi education Society and changes made thereafter, if any. 7. Proof of the registration of the Society issued by the District registrar". The reply dated 28th December, 2002 vide Annexure-N filed along with enclosures by the petitioner has been placed before the Regional committee for considering the request of the petitioner. The Regional committee, after considering the material on record and the reply filed by the petitioner has recorded a specific finding that, the petitioner has failed to produce any records regarding admission tickets for five years. The Regional committee, after considering the material on record and the reply filed by the petitioner has recorded a specific finding that, the petitioner has failed to produce any records regarding admission tickets for five years. Except producing the hall tickets of three students, no other records are furnished by the petitioner like approval of the list of candidates every year by the NCTE etc. The petitioner has not produced any document to substantiate its case that, the institution was offering the course continuously before the establishment of the NCTE Act, 1993. Therefore, it is clear that, there is no document to show that, the institution was functioning as on the date of promulgation of the NCTE act, 1993, namely, 17th August, 1995. The said specific finding given by the first respondent in refusing the request of the petitioner is perfectly ia accordance with law. The said order passed by the first respondent has been confirmed by the second respondent as the Appellate authority, taking into consideration the material on record and the order passed by the first respondent. Therefore, in view of the concurrent finding of facts recorded by both the authorities against the petitioner and the material available on record and considering the strict compliance of the mandatory provisions of the NCTE Act, 1993, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents and the fact that, the petitioner has also not produced any authenticated document to establish that, the institution was existing as on the date of promulgation of the NCTE Act, 1993 on 17th August, 1995, and also the fact that, the petitioner has also failed to produce any document to substantiate his case before this Court also, I am of the view that, interference in the concurrent finding of fact is uncalled for. Further, in view of the letter dated 15th June, 2002 in No. ED 213 PTI 2001 written by the Government to the petitioner wherein, it has been specifically mentioned that, the petitioner institution no doubt, has taken pennission for running the TCH course in the year 1969-70 but there is no document to show that the petitioner-Institution was rurning TCH College and was actually functioning and as to whether the was in existence as on coming into force of the NCTE Act, 1993, viz, 17th August, 1995. Hence, in view of absence of any documentary evidence to show that, the TCH College is functioning as on the date of promulgation of the NCTE Act, 1993, namely, 17th august, 1995, then, the said College is to be treated as non-existent or non-functioning and closed. In the said letter dated 15th June, 2002, referred above, the operative portion of the judgment of this Court made in W. P. Nos. 15470 to 15614 of 1999, DD: 6-8-1999 (Antony Mary Sheela s. v State of Karnataka) has been extracted. The said observation of this Court reads as hereunder. "after the coming into force of the NCTE Act, 1993 an institution offering a Teacher Training course is entitled to continue only if it was an institution in existence on the date of commencement of the Act. This is evident from proviso under section 14 of the Act, which reads as under. "provided that an institution offering a course or training in teacher education immediately before the appointed day, shall be entitled to continue such course or training for a period of six months, if it has made an application for recognition within the said period and until the disposal of the application by the Regional Committee". An institute which is not recognised is neither in law nor in equity entitled to claim that it can either start or continue any course requiring recognition of the authorities under the Central Act". ( 8 ) HENCE, in view of the well-settled principles of law laid down by this Court and taking into consideration the impugned orders passed by both the authorities, on the basis of the material available on record and the relevant provisions of the NCTE Act, 1993, I do not find any error or illegality as such committed by the respondents in refusing the request of the petitioner. ( 9 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, and taking into consideration the facts and law, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the well-considered orders passed by the respondents nor the petitioner has made out any good grounds to entertain the instant writ petition. Hence, interference in this petition is uncalled for. ( 10 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed. --- *** --- .