ORDER :- The petitioner submitted an application to the National Council for Teacher Education ('the Council', for brevity) - 3rd respondent herein, for grant of recognition to establish a college of education at Sullurupet, Nellore District, way back on 6.7.2006. The Inspection Committee constituted by the Regional Director, Southern Regional Committee, National Council for Teacher Education - 4th respondent, visited the institution and is said to have recommended for grant of recognition. The 4th respondent, however, refused to grant recognition vide its order dated 15.5.2007, on the ground that the land on the one hand and the building on the other hand shown by the petitioner are at different places and that the same is contrary to the NCTE new regulations claimed by the Council. 2. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Council, as provided for under the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993. The Council passed an order dated 7.9.2007 taking the view that the registered document dated 27.8.2007 filed by the petitioner is subsequent to the order of rejection, and thereby, it is evident that the petitioner did not have the proper documents in relation to the land and building. WP No.8930 of 2008 was filed before this Court assailing the same. The writ petition was allowed on 11.9.2008 and the order passed by the Council on 7.9.2007 was set aside and the matter was remanded to the appellate authority for fresh consideration and disposal. 3. After remand, the Council, by its order dated 9.2.2009, dismissed the appeal stating that the lease deed and other documents are almost on the same grounds. The petitioner in this writ petition challenges the order dated 9.2.2009. The petitioner contends that the ground on which the Regional Director, Southern Regional Committee, National Council for Teacher Education - 4th respondent rejected the application was totally different from the one mentioned by the Council in the impugned order. It is stated that according to the guidelines issued by the Council, it would be sufficient if the accommodation is provided in temporary premises for the first three years and the necessity to provide permanent accommodation would arise at a subsequent stage. It is stated that according to the guidelines issued by the Council, it would be sufficient if the accommodation is provided in temporary premises for the first three years and the necessity to provide permanent accommodation would arise at a subsequent stage. It is also alleged that the building taken on lease by the petitioner is adequate for running the institution and the mere fact that the petitioner acquired the land at different place for construction of its own building cannot be a ground for rejection of application. 4. On behalf of the Council, counter-affidavit is filed. It is stated that the application submitted by the petitioner was processed with reference to the norms and on finding that as the infrastructure provided by the petitioner does not accord with the norms, it was rejected. Subsequent developments that have taken place up to the time of filing the petition are also stated. The allegation of the petitioner that permissions were accorded to other institutions under the similar circumstances is denied. 5. Heard Sri K.S. Murthy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for School Education for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned Counsel for respondents 3 and 4. 6. This is the second round of litigation before this Court, as regards the grievance of the petitioner. The application filed by the petitioner was rejected by the 4th respondent through the following endorsement. "The land and building are located in different places. It is against NCTE new regulations." 7. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected on 7.9.2007 observing: "In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that two buildings were taken on lease for the proposed course and it was admitted that the land and building were, in fact, located at different places. Moreover, from the documents submitted before the Council, it was noted that the lease deed was registered on 27.8.2007 i.e. much after the refusal or recognition and thus it was evidence that the institution was not having proper documents in regard to the lease of the land and building." 8. Moreover, from the documents submitted before the Council, it was noted that the lease deed was registered on 27.8.2007 i.e. much after the refusal or recognition and thus it was evidence that the institution was not having proper documents in regard to the lease of the land and building." 8. In WP No.8930 filed against it, this Court took the view that the appellate authority was not justified in making reference to the lease deeds and dates thereof, and that was not at all a ground for rejection by the primary authority i.e. the 4th respondent; The writ petition was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Council, for fresh consideration. 9. It is rather unfortunate that despite such remand, the Council stuck to its stand and adopted the same approach and rejected the appeal through order dated 9.2.2009. Relevant paragraph of the order reads as under: The Council noted from the lease deed document that it was not registered prior to SRC's refusal order and the same was registered for 30 years on 29.8.2007 that was after the SRC's refusal order dated 15.5.2007. As 'per NCTE Norms, "The land and building should be either on long-term lease or ownership basis". The land and building which were to be at the same place and taken on lease as per the claimant was not valid, as the lease deed was not registered prior to the refusal order of SRC. 10. On both the occasions, the Council bestowed its attention mostly to the lease deeds submitted by the petitioner, may be, subsequent to the order of rejection by the 4th respondent. The Council lost sight of the fact that the only deficiency pointed out against the petitioner was that the building shown by him is at a different place from the land acquired by the petitioner for construction of new building. The concerned regulations ought to have been referred to and a finding was required to be given, as to whether it is impermissible under the regulations to have a temporary accommodation at one place, and to acquire land for construction of permanent building at a different place. 11. The Council itself prescribed norms for establishment of B.Ed. Colleges. Clause 7 thereof deals with the infrastructure facilities. 11. The Council itself prescribed norms for establishment of B.Ed. Colleges. Clause 7 thereof deals with the infrastructure facilities. Sub-clause' (d) thereof, reads as under: 7(d): To provide these facilities, the Management/Institutions shall, at the time of making application, have in its possession adequate land/land and building on ownership basis free from all encumbrances. Government Land acquired on long-term lease as per the law of the concerned State/UT will also be considered valid for the purpose. Pending construction of pem1anent building in the above land, the institution may provide these facilities in suitable temporary premises upto a maximum period of 3 years, before expiry of which the institution should shift to its permanent building. 12. From this, it becomes clear that it is always open and competent for an institution to provide suitable temporary accommodation for a maximum period of two three years, and to shift the institution to permanent building thereafter. In the instant case, the petitioner acquired temporary accommodation at one building and acquired land at a different place for construction of permanent building. It is not understandable as to how the steps taken by the petitioner can be treated as opposed to the norms. 13. There is total lack and objectivity in processing the application of the petitioner. Despite remand by this Court, the appellate authority adopted the same method of adjudication and dismissed the appeal on totally untenable grounds. This Court finds that the order or primary authority is untenable, arbitrary and contrary to the norms stipulated by the Council. The matter needs to be reconsidered afresh by the 4th respondent herein. 14. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 15.5.2009 passed by the 4th respondent and the one dated 9.2.2009 passed by the 3rd respondent are set aside. The 4th respondent is directed to pass fresh orders within a period of four (04) weeks from today, confining its consideration to the adequacy of the building selected by the petitioner for establishment of the college. Since no other defect was pointed out earlier, it is directed that the 4th respondent shall not be entitled to take into account, any other grounds. There shall be no order as to costs.