Judgment Permod Kohli, J. 1. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. 2. The petitioner is a registered society engaged in imparting D.Ed. and B.Ed. courses in its College established in the name of IPJ College of Education, District Rohtak. The Society applied for grant of recognition to run D.Ed. and B.Ed. Courses. Respondent No. 2 conducted the site inspection and on the basis of the report of the Visiting Team, granted recognition for running the above said two courses for the session 2007-2008. Since then, the college was running the aforesaid courses in the premises duly approved by the NCTE. In the year 2009, the petitioner again applied for starting M.Ed. course and for its recognition. Respondent No. 2 deputed a team for inspection for running the M.Ed. course and on the basis of the inspection report, declined the commencement of the new course of M.Ed. Aggrieved of the refusal, the petitioner has preferred appeal before the NCTE at New Delhi on 04.08.2009 which is under consideration of the Appellate Authority. 3. In the meantime, while the aforesaid matter was pending, the petitioner received a Show Cause Notice dated 25.05.2009 (Annexure P-5) communicating as many as ten deficiencies asking the petitioner to make representation to Show Cause why their recognition for D.Ed. and B.Ed. courses is not withdrawn. 4. The petitioner replied to the aforesaid notice vide its two replies, Annexures P-4 and P-5. It was, inter alia, pleaded by the petitioner that respondent No. 2 had inspected the infrastructure etc. at the time of grant of recognition for D.Ed. and B.Ed. courses in the year 2007-2008 and there were no deficiencies. The petitioner also pleaded that the land has been purchased and the building has been constructed in the name of the society and if it is required to be transferred in the name of the College, 90 days period for transfer of the land in the name of college, be granted. It may also be noticed here that the petitioner also informed respondent No. 2 that the Visiting Team had asked for illegal gratification. The petitioner received order a dated 26/28.07.2009 (Annexure P-8) whereby the recognition granted to the petitioner-society for D.Ed. and B.Ed. courses for the academic Session 2009-2010 has been withdrawn in 145th meeting of NRC held on 26th to 28th July, 2009. The petitioner received order a dated 26/28.07.2009 (Annexure P-8) whereby the recognition granted to the petitioner-society for D.Ed. and B.Ed. courses for the academic Session 2009-2010 has been withdrawn in 145th meeting of NRC held on 26th to 28th July, 2009. While withdrawing the recognition following infirmities/deficiencies have been petitioner society : "DECISION OF NRC : The original file of the Institution, along with other related documents, Act of NCTE, 1993, Regulations and guidelines of NCTE published from time to time were considered by the Committee and the committee observes the following : * The building map submitted along with the reply to the show cause notice does not tally with the building maps submitted along with the application of D.Ed. and B.Ed. respectively. * The dimensions of different rooms mentioned by VT members do not tally with any building plan. * Multipurpose Hall does not exist. * CLU is not submitted. * The building completion certificate is not issued to competent authority. * Bill submitted for purchase of computers does not tally with the information, regarding computers given in the reply to the Show Cause Notice." 5. In order to meet the aforesaid deficiencies, the petitioner pleaded as under : 1. That the plan accompanying the application of at the time of grant of recognition letter of intent was only a proposed plan of the College and the actual building plan has been furnished along with the Show Cause Notice. There are minor alterations. 2. The Visiting Team did not inspect the building where D.Ed. and B.Ed. courses are being carried out and the inspection was only in respect to building proposed for M.Ed. course. Thus, the deficiency could not have been noticed by the Visiting Team. 3. The Multi Purpose Hall is existing in the building where D.Ed. and B.Ed. courses are being carried out, but the Visiting Team di not visit the same. 4. That when the building for D.Ed. and B.Ed. course was constructed the area was outside the controlled area. Thus, no CLU was required. No Objection Certificate from the District Town Planner regarding the constructin and land was furnished. 5. and B.Ed. courses are being carried out, but the Visiting Team di not visit the same. 4. That when the building for D.Ed. and B.Ed. course was constructed the area was outside the controlled area. Thus, no CLU was required. No Objection Certificate from the District Town Planner regarding the constructin and land was furnished. 5. The petitioner further states that it the Right to applied under Information Act and in response to the application of the petitioner, the District Town Planner, Rohtak, vide letter dated 02.07.2009 has informed the petitioner that construction of the college was made prior to declaration of the Controlled Area. Therefore, no action under the Punjab Scheduled Road and Controlled Area Act, 1963, is required. 6. The petitioner has also placed on record a certificate dated 10.08.2009 (Annexure P-13) issued by the Gram Panchayat, Ismaila, District Rohtak, conveying its No Objection for the establishment of the College. 7. Since the area fall outside the Controlled Area, the completion certificate from the Government approved Architect dated 16.07.2007 was submitted at the time of initial recognition in the year 2007. Copies of the bills regarding purchase of the computers have also been placed on record. 6. From the reply of the petitioner to the Show Case Notice and the nature of the deficiencies communicated to the petitioner - college, it appears that respondent No. 2 has not applie its mind appropriately on the question of deficiencies. 7. It may be noticed here that when initial permission was granted, the Visiting Team of respondent No. 2 passed the following orders : "....... ....... ...... 2. AND WHEREAS on scrutiny of the application submitted by the institution, the documents attached therewith the affidavit and the inputs received from the Visiting Team in the form of report and videography, the Committee is satisfied that the institution/society fulfills the requirements under the provisions of NCTE Act, Rules and relevant Regulations including the Norms and Standards for the Secondary Teacher Education including the Norms and standards for the Secondary Teacher Education programme such as instructional facilities, infrastructural facilities, library, accommodation, financial resources, laboratory etc. for running the programme and has selected/appointed duly qualified teaching staff as per NCTE norms." 8. Reply to the writ petition has been filed. for running the programme and has selected/appointed duly qualified teaching staff as per NCTE norms." 8. Reply to the writ petition has been filed. While denying the allegation of demand of gratification, it is stated that in view of the deficiencies noticed by the Visiting Team, recognition of the petitioner-College has been withdrawn. The respondents, however, have not indicated as to what are the violations which persuaded them to withdraw the recognition granted in the year 2007-2008, when the entire infrastructure was found to be in order. It is not the case of the respondents that the earlier recognition order was secured by the petitioner on any misrepresentation or fraud. It is also not pointed out that the existing building, even if it has some alterations from the earlier plan, violate the norms prescribed by the NCTE. 9. There is another important aspect of the matter. The petitioner was granted permanent recognition in the year 2007. In the year 2009 when the petitioner applied for recognition for M.Ed. course, the respondents were required to examine the infrastructure required for the M.Ed. course only. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the Visiting Team did not visit and examine the building where D.Ed. and B.Ed. courses were being run and it only inspected the portion of the building where new course of M.Ed. was proposed. This fact has neither been denied in the reply nor indicated in the impugned order. Under such situation, how the respondents could again find out the deficiencies in the infrastructure in respect to the building where D.Ed. and B.Ed. courses are being run. Reply filed by the respond is too vague as against the specific averments made in the writ petition. 10. I am convinced that the impugned order withdrawing the recognition for D.Ed. and B.Ed. courses has not been passed in accordance with law and the same is not based upon the actual and real facts and it smells extraneous considerations. 11. In view of the above circumstances, the present petition is allowed. The impugned order is hereby quashed and respondents No. 1 and 2 are directed to re-consider the matter. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are further directed that after affording full opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, the respondents shall pass a fresh order. 11. In view of the above circumstances, the present petition is allowed. The impugned order is hereby quashed and respondents No. 1 and 2 are directed to re-consider the matter. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are further directed that after affording full opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, the respondents shall pass a fresh order. However, in the meantime, the petitioner-college shall be notified for counseling and students be allocated to it for the academic session 2009-2010. No costs.