Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is a Society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act. This Society is being run by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Kumbakonam. 2. The petitioner-Society was established in the year 1922-1923 by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Kumbakonam and has been administering 8 Hr. Sec. Schools, 10 High Schools, 35 Middle Schools, 70 Primary Schools and hostels, boarding, orphanages, Hospitals and a Teacher Training Institute in the Revenue Districts of Trichy, Tanjaore, Ariyalur and Perambalur. 3. The petitioner-Society decided to have a B.Ed., College, hence, they made an application dated 28.07.2009 to the second respondent seeking their approval for having a B.Ed., College. The said application was rejected by the second respondent by an order dated 30.04.2010. 4. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition to quash the aforesaid order dated 30.04.2010 of the second respondent and for a consequential direction to the first and second respondents to grant permanent recognition to the "Poondi Pudhumai Madha College of Education" in Vengankudi, Samayapuram, Manachanallur, Trichirapalli – 621 112. 5. Notice of motion was ordered on 12.05.2010. 6. Heard Mr.K.Doraisamy, learned senior counsel for the petitioner ; Mr.K.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned SCGSC for the first and second respondents and Mrs.Lita Srinivasan, learned Government Advocate for the third and fourth respondents. 7. The reasons for rejecting the application as found in the impugned order dated 30.04.2010 are as follows:- "1. The institution has not submitted valid Minority Status Certificate in the name of the institution from the competent authority. 2. The institution has submitted sale deed registered in the name of Kumbakonam Multipurpose Social Service Society whereas as per application the name of the society is Kumbakonam Dioceses Society Sy. No.55/4, 55/3, 55/1 with total area of 2.73 cents." 8. As far as the first reason is concerned, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-Society is treated as Minority Educational Institution in respect of the Institutions that are run by them. Further, it is submitted that the matter was concluded treating the petitioner-Society as Minority Institution by the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the batch of Writ Petitions in W.P.No.295 of 1975, dated 24.09.1976. The petitioner filed W.P.No.585 of 1975 and that also forms part of the batch. Further, it is submitted that the matter was concluded treating the petitioner-Society as Minority Institution by the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the batch of Writ Petitions in W.P.No.295 of 1975, dated 24.09.1976. The petitioner filed W.P.No.585 of 1975 and that also forms part of the batch. Thereafter, the Assistant Secretary to Government, Education Department issued a letter No.51559/RD2/76-14, dated, 21.10.1976 stating that the petitioner-Society is a Minority Institution, as per the order of this Court referred to above. The aforesaid order of this Court in W.P.No.295 of 1975 batch as well as the copy of the letter dated 21.10.1976 of the Assistant Secretary to Government, Education Department are produced before this Court. The learned counsel for the first and second respondents-NCTE submitted that the production of these documents before this Court is not sufficient and they should produce those copies to the concerned authorities, namely, the second respondent. In fact, the order of this Court coupled with the letter dated 21.10.1976 of the Assistant Secretary to Government, makes it clear that the petitioner-Society is a Minority Institution. However, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, these orders are to be produced to the second respondent-NCTE to satisfy them that the petitioner-Society is a Minority Institution. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner-Society submits that the petitioner is inclined to submit these orders in support of their plea that the petitioner is a Minority Institution. 9. As far as the second reason is concerned, the learned counsel for the first and second respondents-NCTE submit that the petitioner failed to comply with Regulation 8 (7) of the National Council for Teacher Education (Regulations and Norms and Standards) Regulations 2007. According to them, the petitioner-Society ought to have produced the sale deed in their favour or lease from the Government relating to the land on which they proposed to have the B.Ed., College. But, the petitioner produced the lease deed from a private party and that therefore the second respondent had no option but to reject the application. The learned counsel for the respondents-NCTE also relies on a decision of this Court in W.P.No.6515 of 2009, dated 21.07.2009 in this regard. 10. But, the petitioner produced the lease deed from a private party and that therefore the second respondent had no option but to reject the application. The learned counsel for the respondents-NCTE also relies on a decision of this Court in W.P.No.6515 of 2009, dated 21.07.2009 in this regard. 10. The Regulation 8(7) of the National Council for Teacher Education (Regulations and Norms and Standards) Regulations 2007 is extracted here-under:- "No institution shall be granted recognition under these regulations unless it is in possession of required land on the date of application. The land free from all encumbrances could be either on ownership basis or on lease from Government/Govt institutions for a period of not less than 30 years. In case where under relevant State/UT laws the maximum permissible lease period is less than 30 years, the State Government/UT Administration law shall prevail. However, no building could be taken on lease for running any teacher training course." The Regulations makes it very clear that either they should have a sale deed or a lease from the Government. A lease from the private party is not permissible under the Regulations. The issue was considered by this Court in the order dated 21.07.2009 in W.P.No.6515 of 2009 and the relevant passage in para 13 of the order is as follows:- "Since the petitioner did not possess the ownership of the land, on the date of the submission of the application, the application could not be considered in accordance with the regulations. In such circumstances, the application of the petitioner, dated 30.10.2008, for the grant of recognition for commencing the B.Ed., course cannot be reconsidered. However, it is open to the petitioner to apply afresh for the academic year 2010-2011." 11. In these circumstances, I do not find any infirmity in the order of the second respondent. The writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. However, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is willing to rectify the defects pointed out in the impugned order. That is, according to the learned senior counsel that the petitioner is willing to produce the aforesaid order of this Court and the letter dated 21.10.1976 of the Assistant Secretary to Government, Education Department in support of their plea that the petitioner is a Minority Institution and also a sale deed in favour of the petitioner-Society. 12. That is, according to the learned senior counsel that the petitioner is willing to produce the aforesaid order of this Court and the letter dated 21.10.1976 of the Assistant Secretary to Government, Education Department in support of their plea that the petitioner is a Minority Institution and also a sale deed in favour of the petitioner-Society. 12. The learned counsel for the NCTE submits that the petitioner has to make fresh application and the fresh application could be considered for grant of approval to have a B.Ed., course by the petitioner-Society for the academic year 2011-2012. The same is recorded. 13. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed.