Judgment :- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This writ petition had been filed to call for and quash the records relating to the order of the first respondent, dated 112. 2008, confirming the order of the second respondent, dated 29. 2008, rejecting the request of the petitioner Institution for the grant of recognition. 3. It has been submitted that the petitioner Institution has been granted recognition by the National Council for Teacher Education, the second respondent herein, to offer B.Ed., course. Pursuant to the said recognition the petitioner Institution has been successfully running the B.E.d, course. It has a built up space of 36,268.08 Sq.Ft., which is more than the minimum requirement of 16,000 Sq.Ft., prescribed by the respondents for the granting of recognition. While so, the petitioner Institution had applied to the second respondent for the grant of recognition for starting M.Ed. course for the year 2008-2009, through their application, dated 22. 2008, made under Section 14 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993. As per the norms prescribed by the respondents a sum of Rs.8 lakhs had also been deposited, on 17. 2008. On 37. 2008, the second respondent had sent an inspection team to verify if the petitioner Institution had complied with the requirements, as prescribed by the respondents. The visiting team, after inspecting the petitioner Institution, had submitted a report to the second respondent stating that the petitioner Institution had satisfied the norms prescribed by the respondents, as per law. 4. It has been further stated that the inspection report was considered by the Southern Regional Committee, in its 162nd meeting held, on the 20th and the 21st of August, 2008. Thereafter, the second respondent had issued a notice, dated 28. 2008, stating that the petitioner Institution does not fulfill certain requirements, as pointed out in the said notice. On 30.8.2008, the petitioner Institution had submitted a written representation to the Southern Regional Committee, along with the necessary documents, as proof of compliance. However, the said Committee, without considering the representation of the petitioner, had refused to grant recognition to the petitioner Institution, by an order, dated 29. On 30.8.2008, the petitioner Institution had submitted a written representation to the Southern Regional Committee, along with the necessary documents, as proof of compliance. However, the said Committee, without considering the representation of the petitioner, had refused to grant recognition to the petitioner Institution, by an order, dated 29. 2008, under Section 14(3)(b) of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, for the following reasons: "(i) The available built up space of 20,640 sq.ft as per reply is not adequate for both existing B.Ed and proposed M.Ed., course as per norms of NCTE. (ii)The details of built up space for existing and proposed course is not available in the reply. (iii) The Management has not submitted Certificate from concerned affiliating University stating that there is no other coures being run in the same building. (iv) The additional education books and equipment in all labs are not adequate for both existing B.Ed. And proposed M.Ed., course." 5. It has been further submitted that the second respondent, in its notice, dated 28. 2008, had wrongly mentioned that the built up space available for the existing B.Ed. course was only 11,440 Sq.Ft. Even though the petitioner Institution had clarified in its reply, dated 30.8.2008, that it had a total built up area of 20,640 Sq.Ft for the existing B.Ed. course, the second respondent had mistaken the built up area of 20,640 Sq.Ft. to be the space both for the existing B.Ed. course, as well as for the proposed M.Ed. course. Accordingly, the request of the petitioner for starting the M.Ed. course had been wrongly rejected. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner Institution had preferred an appeal before the first respondent, under Section 18 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993. However, the first respondent had rejected the appeal on the ground that the petitioner Institution had only a built up area of 20,640 Sq.Ft. which is inadequate, as per the norms prescribed by the National Council for Teacher Education. Further, the first respondent had erred in noting that the petitioner Institution had only a carpet area of 9,920 Sq.Ft., contrary to the facts. 6. which is inadequate, as per the norms prescribed by the National Council for Teacher Education. Further, the first respondent had erred in noting that the petitioner Institution had only a carpet area of 9,920 Sq.Ft., contrary to the facts. 6. It has been further submitted that in spite of showing cogent documentary proof to support the claims of the petitioner Institution, including the Building Completion Certificate issued by the civic authority, the respondents had rejected the request of the petitioner Institution for the starting of the M.Ed. course, arbitrarily, and without giving an opportunity to put forth its case. The impugned orders have been issued based on misconceived facts. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution India. .7. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the impugned orders passed by the respondents are arbitrary and illegal, as they are based on misconceived facts. The respondents had erred in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner Institution does not have adequate built up space for starting the M.Ed. course. The impugned orders have been passed on the wrong assumption that the petitioner Institution had a built up area of 20,640 Sq.Ft. only and therefore, it would be inadequate for the existing B.Ed. and the proposed M.Ed. courses, as per the norms prescribed by the National Council for Teacher Education. The first respondent had erred in stating that the petitioner Institution had a carpet area of 9,920 Sq.Ft. only and it had failed to note that the total built up space was 36,268.08 Sq.Ft., which is more than the required built up area for running the said course, as per the Appendix-V of the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition, Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2007. Further, the visiting team had stated in its report, written after its inspection, on 37. 2008, that it was satisfied with the infrastructural and instructional facilities provided for conducting the proposed M.Ed. program. Thus, it is clear that the impugned orders have been issued, without application of mind and the said orders are not in accordance with Section 14(3) of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, and therefore, the said orders are liable to be set aside. .8. program. Thus, it is clear that the impugned orders have been issued, without application of mind and the said orders are not in accordance with Section 14(3) of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, and therefore, the said orders are liable to be set aside. .8. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the allegations and averments made by the petitioner have been denied. Even though the petitioner Institution has claimed that it has built up space of 36,268 Sq.Ft for the B.Ed. and M.Ed. courses, in its reply to the notice, dated 30.8.2008, it has been stated that only an area of 20,640 Sq.Ft were available. It has been further stated that after verification of the documents, as per the regulations, an inspection team had been deputed to the petitioners institution, on 37. 2008, to verify the infrastructural and instructional facilities, created by the petitioner Institution for conducting the M.Ed. course. The second respondent, in its meeting held on the 20th and the 21st of August 2008, had also considered the inspection report and the video recording made during the inspection. The committee had observed that the built up area for the B.Ed. course was 11,440 Sq.Ft, and the laboratories and the library was also shared with the M.Ed. course. The M.Ed. block has a total area of 9,724 Sq.Ft only. Thus, the total area available for both the B.Ed. as well as the M.Ed. Courses, was 21,074 Sq.Ft., out of which 4,140 Sq.Ft was the common area. Accordingly, the actual total built up area was 16,934 Sq.Ft only. Whereas the visiting team had wrongly mentioned the total built up area for the additional course to be 22,600 Sq.Ft. Therefore, a notice had been issued to the petitioner Institution asking for further details of the built up space for the existing B.Ed. course, as well as for the proposed M.Ed. course. The petitioner Institution had submitted a representation, dated 30.8.2008, which was considered in the 163rd meeting held on the 29th and the 30th of August 2008. On considering the written representation, it was found that the petitioner Institution is having a total built up area of 20,640 Sq.Ft. only, including the class rooms, multi purpose hall, the laboratories and the library. The said report does not provide sufficient information about the exclusive built up area for the existing B.Ed. On considering the written representation, it was found that the petitioner Institution is having a total built up area of 20,640 Sq.Ft. only, including the class rooms, multi purpose hall, the laboratories and the library. The said report does not provide sufficient information about the exclusive built up area for the existing B.Ed. course and for the proposed M.Ed. course. Further, the letter required from the concerned affiliating University has not been submitted, along with the representation. The norms and standards prescribed by the National Council for Teacher Education had not been complied with by the petitioner institution, with regard to the establishment of its library. The number of books and the titles necessary was not made available. In such circumstances, the respondents had rightly rejected the request of the petitioner for the approval of the proposed M.Ed. course. 9. In view of the averments and the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, it is clear that the petitioner Institution has not shown sufficient cause or reason for this Court to grant the reliefs, as prayed for in the present writ petition. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner institution has not been in a position to substantiate the claims made on behalf of the petitioner institution, with regard to the infrastructural and instructional facilities made available for conducting the M.Ed. programme. The Southern Regional Committee of the National Council for Teacher Education had found serious discrepancies in the facilities provided by the petitioner Institution for running the M.Ed. course. In such circumstances, the impugned orders have been passed by the respondents rejecting the request of the petitioner institution for granting of approval for conducting the M.Ed. course. As such, it is clear that the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner Institution cannot be countenanced. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. However, it is open to the petitioner Institution to submit a fresh application to the respondents requesting the respondents to grant the necessary approval for conducting M.Ed. Course, for the forthcoming academic year, in accordance with the regulations, norms and standards of the National Council for Teacher Education and the relevant provisions of law applicable to the case. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed with the above observations. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P is closed.