Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsels appearing for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for and quash the proceedings of the second respondent, dated 20.3.2009, confirming the order of the first respondent, dated 10. 2008, refusing to grant recognition for the B.Ed. course, in terms of Section 14(3)(b) of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993. 3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned orders have been passed illegally, without jurisdiction, since they are contrary to the report of the inspection team which had recommended for the grant of recognition to the petitioner Institute to commence the B.Ed. course. The petitioner had applied for a certificate from the Directorate of Teacher Education Research and Training, on 19. 2008, stating that no other course is being conducted in the institution. The Chief Educational Officer, Villupuram, had also issued a certificate stating that no other course is being conducted in the same institution. However, the impugned orders have been passed by the respondents, without considering the certificates issued by the concerned authorities. 4. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, and on a perusal of the records available, it is clear that the main reason for the refusal of the grant of recognition for conducting the B.Ed. course by the petitioner Institute, for the academic year 2008-2009, is that another course is being run by the petitioner Institute in the same premises. In spite of all the other requirements being complied with by the petitioner Institute, the respondents have refused to grant recognition, as prayed for by the petitioner, contrary to the rules and regulations applicable to the grant of such recognition and in violation of the principles of natural justice. 5. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent had placed before this Court a report of the Director, District Teacher Education and Training Institute, Villupuram, dated 16. 2009, showing that no other course is being run in the petitioner premises. 5. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent had placed before this Court a report of the Director, District Teacher Education and Training Institute, Villupuram, dated 16. 2009, showing that no other course is being run in the petitioner premises. The copy of the said report has been handed over to the learned counsel for the petitioner, who in turn had stated that the said report would be submitted before the respondents by the petitioner, within ten days from today. It was prayed that on such submission, the respondents may be directed to pass appropriate orders, with regard to the granting of recognition to the petitioner Institute for conducting the B.Ed. course, within a specified period. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has no objection for this Court passing such an order. 7. In such circumstances, the impugned orders of the respondents, dated 10. 2008 and 20.3.2009, are set aside and the petitioner is directed to place the report of the Director, District Teacher Education and Training Institute, Villupuram, dated 16. 2009, before the first respondent within ten days from today. On receipt of the said report, the first respondent is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, for the granting of recognition to the petitioner Institute to conduct the B.Ed. course, as prayed for by the petitioner, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed to the extent noted above. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2009 is closed.