Hon’ble Shishir Kumar, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Present writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned public notice issued by the Member Secretary, National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), New Delhi (respondent No.2) as published in the English Daily Times of India dated 28.07.2009 (Annexure-XV to the writ petition) in so far as it excludes applicants from the State of Uttar Pradesh being accorded consideration for recognition of Bachelor of Education Course (B.Ed.) and Bachelor of Physical Education (B.P.Ed.) for the academic session 2010-11. Further, a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the applications of the petitioners for granting recognition in the aforesaid courses for academic session 2010-11 within a specific period.3. The facts arising out of the writ petition are that Sushma Educational Society, Kanpur Nagar, which is a registered society under the Societies Registration Act, wanted to establish an educational institution, therefore, a property was purchased and huge amount was expended for construction of the building and other infrastructures. The National Council for Teacher Education has been constituted as a statutory body under the provisions of National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, vested with a power of granting approval / recognition to the institutions engaged or desirous of being engaged in teacher training education.4. An advertisement was issued by respondent No.3, which was published in the daily newspaper ‘Dainik Jagran’ on 26.04.2009 informing that applications will be entertained by the NCTE, Jaipur, for recognition of the institutions for academic session 2010-11 between 01.08.2009 to 31.10.2009. A similar advertisement was issued by respondent No.2. In pursuance of the advertisement, petitioners submitted an application form and have deposited the following amounts:-(i) A fixed deposit receipt for an amount of Rs.5 lacs towards endowment fund for B.Ed. course;(ii) A fixed deposit receipt for an amount of Rs.3 lacs towards reserve fund for B.Ed. course;(iii) A demand draft drawn in the name of Regional Director, Northern Regional Committee, National Council for Teacher Education, Jaipur for an amount of Rs.40,000/- towards inspection fees for B.Ed. course; and(iv) A demand draft drawn in the name of Regional Director, Northern Regional Committee, National Council for Teacher Education, Jaipur for an amount of Rs.1,000/- towards application fee for B.Ed. course.5. The application of the petitioners was being kept pending. course; and(iv) A demand draft drawn in the name of Regional Director, Northern Regional Committee, National Council for Teacher Education, Jaipur for an amount of Rs.1,000/- towards application fee for B.Ed. course.5. The application of the petitioners was being kept pending. In the meantime, a notice was published in the newspaper by the National Council for Teacher Education to the effect that in consultation with the State Government a decision has been taken that no recognition in the academic session 2010-11 will be given to various States including the State of Uttar Pradesh for the purposes of running B.Ed., B.P.Ed., and D.P.Ed. classes. Further, in clause (2) it is mentioned that the restriction imposed as well as the decision taken will not be applicable in the case of minority institutions.6. Petitioners aggrieved by the aforesaid publication have approached this Court on the ground that the restriction imposed is totally arbitrary and discriminatory because NCTE under the Act of 1993 does not have such power to take a decision not to accord any consideration to an institution for the purposes of recognition for a particular academic session. The decision to that effect is totally without jurisdiction regarding declining to permit recognition to the new educational institutions for imparting education of Bachelor of Education and Bachelor of Physical Education courses and it has further been submitted that no material has been disclosed by the respondent NCTE that under what circumstances such decision can be taken and whether for a particular year such decision can be taken for not according recognition to any new institution being the fact that the action of the respondent can easily be treated to be arbitrary and discriminatory in nature. The writ petition was entertained and by order dated 25.08.2009 this Court has directed the learned Standing Counsel as well as the counsel for the NCTE Sri R.A. Akhtar to file counter affidavit and to place before the Court regarding the decision taken. Subsequently, the case was taken up twice and this Court vide its order dated 22.01.2010 was pleased to direct the respondents to file counter affidavit. Now, today the case is listed, but no counter affidavit has been filed till date. Subsequently, the case was taken up twice and this Court vide its order dated 22.01.2010 was pleased to direct the respondents to file counter affidavit. Now, today the case is listed, but no counter affidavit has been filed till date. Sri R.A. Akhtar, learned counsel for the NCTE has placed a letter dated 31.08.2010 mentioning therein that a decision has been taken by the authorities regarding issuance of recognition under clause 7(9) or 7(11) of the NCTE Regulations to the institutions which were found eligible for grant of recognition on merit, but the order could not be issued due to the ban imposed on 26.07.2009. The Council has considered and it has been clarified that pending cases in which applications have already been made and they are due to consideration that will be considered and present ban is only on fresh receipt of the application for the academic session 2011-12 and old pending cases will be disposed of on merit, without any reference to the ban.7. Though, Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate submitted that as the application of the petitioners has already been rejected, therefore, now if an application is made by the petitioners under the proforma as prescribed no recognition will be granted for the period of 2010-11 and for the session 2011-12 in the letter dated 31.08.2010 a mention is there that ban will be applicable upon the fresh receipt of applications, meaning thereby the application, if any, filed by the petitioners will not be considered. Sri R.A. Akhtar, learned counsel for the respondents informs that the application of the petitioners made earlier is with the respondent. Now, it needs only consideration on merit without taking into consideration the imposition of ban.8. I have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the letter dated 31.08.2010 placed by the respondents before the Court. The said letter clearly indicates that the ban imposed for the session 2010-11 has been withdrawn and now the applications which are pending consideration for 2010-11 session can be considered in view of the letter dated 31.08.2010.9. In such circumstances, without entering into the merits of the case, which has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this writ petition can be disposed of finally with a direction to respondent No.3 to consider the application of the petitioners for granting recognition for running B.Ed. and B.P.Ed. In such circumstances, without entering into the merits of the case, which has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this writ petition can be disposed of finally with a direction to respondent No.3 to consider the application of the petitioners for granting recognition for running B.Ed. and B.P.Ed. courses treating it for the session 2010-11 on merit according to law within a period of three weeks from the date of production of certified copy of the order. It is, however, open to the petitioners to make a fresh application annexing all the documents which have already been submitted by the petitioners to facilitate the respondent to take a decision as directed by this Court.10. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.11. No order as to costs._____________