JUDGMENT 1. By filing this writ under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 30.10.2008 (Annexure P-12) and order dated 2.1.2009 (Annexure P-18) passed by R-2/3 i.e. Board of Secondary Education. 2. Facts of the case are these. 3. Petitioner is a Trust registered under the M.P. Public Trust Act. It is running one college by name called "Gulab Bai Yadav D.Ed. Shiksha Samsthan" at Borawan District-Khargone. It is running courses in D.Ed., B.Ed. and M.Ed. in the said college. It has obtained requisite recognition from all concerning statutory bodies such as NCTE, Board of Secondary Education etc. for establishing the educational institution and imparting courses in D.Ed./B.Ed./M.Ed. subjects. 4. The petitioner was granted affiliation-permission to run the D.Ed. course for the session 2007-08. The petitioner for the next session i.e.2008-09 then applied for renewal to Board of Secondary Education. By impugned order dated 30.10.2008 (Annexure P-12), the Board rejected the application of the petitioner only on the ground that they failed to submit one affidavit in time prescribed for its submission in support of their renewal application. The petitioner felt aggrieved filed appeal-representation to Board as provided in their regulations. However, by order dated 2.1.2009 (Annexure P-18), the Board rejected the appeal representation. It is against these 2 orders i.e. against the rejection of their renewal application so also the rejection of representation for the session 2008-09, the petitioner has felt aggrieved and filed this writ. 5. Notice of the writ was issued to respondents. So far as R-5 i.e. NCIT is concerned, they have stated on affidavit that petitioner has satisfied all their norms and therefore, they have no grievance. So far as Board (R-3/4) is concerned they have simply defended their impugned order without justifying as to why and on what basis, such an order could be passed. 6. Heard Shri Piyush Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri R.S. Chhabra, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2 and Shri Girish Desai, Dy. A.G. for the respondents Nos. 3 and 4/State. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the writ and set aside the impugned orders. 8. It is not in dispute that petitioner was granted recognition-affiliation for running the D.Ed. courses for the Academic Session 2007-08 by Board of Secondary Education. 3 and 4/State. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the writ and set aside the impugned orders. 8. It is not in dispute that petitioner was granted recognition-affiliation for running the D.Ed. courses for the Academic Session 2007-08 by Board of Secondary Education. It is also not in dispute that petitioner has satisfied all norms-conditions necessary for running the courses. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has filed an affidavit as asked by the Board. It is further not in dispute that Board failed to disclose as to why affidavit filed by the petitioner is not acceptable. In other words, the Board has not been able to show any kind of infirmity in the affidavit except to complain in the impugned order that it was not filed in time. 9. In our considered opinion, the action on the part of the Board in passing the impugned orders i.e. (Annexure P-12 to P-18) cannot be upheld for more than one reason. In the first place, the impugned order so far as it relates to rejection of representation of petitioner is concerned i.e. order dated 2.1.2009 (Annexure P-18) the same does not contain any reasons much less cogent and relevant one. Secondly, it was obligatory upon the Board while rejecting the representation to have assigned the reasons as to why and on what basis the representation of petitioner is not acceptable and which are those infirmities, which remain on the record due to which renewal is not permissible. Thirdly, when admittedly petitioner filed an affidavit and ensured compliance of the direction necessary for being mentioned in the affidavit then the Board should have examined the affidavit and its contents rather than to find fault in its filing. 10. In our considered opinion, delay in filing the affidavit cannot be a ground to refuse renewal if petitioner otherwise satisfies all other conditions and norms prescribed for renewal. It is for the reason that time limit fixed by the Board for filing any such affidavit along with the renewal application is not governed by any provision of law but is governed by executive instructions issued by Board from time to time. It is for the reason that time limit fixed by the Board for filing any such affidavit along with the renewal application is not governed by any provision of law but is governed by executive instructions issued by Board from time to time. I there was some delay on the part of petitioner in submitting the affidavit then it deserves to be condoned being procedural in nature. 11. As observed supra, it being an undisputed fact that petitioner has satisfied all terms-conditions necessary for claiming renewal for the year 2008-09 and the fact that Board has not come out with any ground either in the impugned order or in the return in support of their case of rejection, the petition deserves to be allowed. It is accordingly allowed. The order dated 30.10.2008 (Annexure P-12) and order dated 2.1.2009 (Annexure P-18) passed by Board (R-3/4) are hereby quashed by issuance of writ of certiorari. We accordingly also issue a writ of mandamus against the Board of Secondary Education i.e. respondent No.3 and 4 and direct them (R-3/4) to issue in favour of petitioner renewal certificate as demanded by them by their application dated 6.9.2008 for their academic session 2008-09 within 2 weeks from the date of this order as an outer limit for D.Ed. course. No cost.