ORDER Sushma Shrivastava, J. 1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 8.10.09 (Annexure P-7) passed by National Council for Teachers Education/Respondent No. 1, whereby the order dated 11.8.09 (Annexure P-6) rejecting the application of the Petitioner-society for grant of recognition to conduct B. Ed. Course, passed by Western Regional Committee, NCTE/Respondent No. 2 has been affirmed and the appeal filed by the Petitioner-society under Section 18 of the National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993 has been rejected. 2. The Petitioner is a registered society running a college in the name of Adarsh Rajabhoj College of Education, Bharat Bharti, Jamthi, Betul imparting education for D. Ed. Course. The Petitioner-society filed an application before Western Regional Committee of N.C.T.E./Respondent No. 2 (in short 'WRC') under Section 14/ 15 of NCTE Act (in short 'the Act') on 23.10.08 for grant of recognition to its institution to run B. Ed. course, claiming all the eligibility criteria and qualifications required for initiating B. Ed. Course. The Petitioner received a letter dated 19.2.09 (Annexure P-2) from WRC requiring to make good certain deficiencies within ninety days. The Petitioner-society rectified the defects pointed out by WRC and informed the Regional Director, Western Regional Committee vide letter dated 15.5.09 (Annexure P-3) and also submitted the required documents, but despite fulfillment of all the deficiencies, no team visited the college for inspection in spite of letter dated 15.7.09 (Annexure P-4) sent by the Petitioner in this behalf; and without any inspection the impugned order dated 11.8.09 was passed by the Western Regional Committee rejecting the application of the Petitioner-society for grant of recognition on some more new grounds, not raised earlier. Being aggrieved by the order (Annexure P-6) passed by Western Regional Committee, Petitioner filed an appeal before N.C.T.E./Respondent No. 1 (in short 'the Council') under Section 18 of the Act, but the same was rejected without any justification by Respondent No. 1 and the order of refusal of recognition to the Petitioner-institution was affirmed vide Annexure P-7. Petitioner, therefore, prayed that the orders dated 11.8.09 and 08.10.09 (Annexures P-6 and P-7) passed by the Respondents No. 1 and 2 be quashed, and they be directed to grant recognition to the Petitioner's institution for conducting B. Ed. Petitioner, therefore, prayed that the orders dated 11.8.09 and 08.10.09 (Annexures P-6 and P-7) passed by the Respondents No. 1 and 2 be quashed, and they be directed to grant recognition to the Petitioner's institution for conducting B. Ed. course, alternatively Respondents be directed to inspect the Petitioner's college and pass fresh order as per norms and guidelines of N.C.T.E. Regulations, on its application for grant of recognition to run B. Ed. Course. 3. In the return filed by the Respondents No. 1 and 2, it was submitted that the application of the Petitioner-society for permission of recognition to its institution was rejected vide order dated 11.8.09 (Annexure P-6) for the following reasons: (i) Land is meant for agriculture and not teacher education. (ii) CLU not submitted. (iii) Original FD Rs for Reserve Fund not submitted. (iv) FDR for endowment fund is only for 12 months. (v) Built up area and khasra number not mentioned in the affidavit. 4. According to Respondents No. 1 and 2, before rejecting the application, a letter was issued by the WRC to the institution on 19.2.09 asking it to remove the deficiencies within a period of ninety days as per Regulation 7(1) of the NCTE Regulations, 2007, which was not complied with by the institution and therefore, WRC had no option but to take a decision in its 121st meeting held on 8-9 July, 2009 that the application of the said institution should be rejected and file be closed. In the appeal preferred by the Petitioner-society against the aforesaid rejection order before NCTE and during personal presentation before NCTE, it was urged that the required documents were submitted by the institution within time; if the points on which the file was closed were mentioned to institution, it would have fulfilled the same, but the NCTE noted that the deficiency letter issued to the institution on 19.2.09 requiring to remove the deficiencies within a period of ninety days as per Regulation 7(1) of the NCTE Regulations, 2007, was not complied with by the institution. The Council was, therefore, of the view that the application of the institution for recognition to run B. Ed. course was rejected by WRC on valid grounds and there was no justification for accepting the appeal. The Council was, therefore, of the view that the application of the institution for recognition to run B. Ed. course was rejected by WRC on valid grounds and there was no justification for accepting the appeal. Before rejecting the appeal, the NCTE perused all the documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit and also heard oral arguments and thereafter the Council reached the conclusion to reject the appeal and affirmed the order dated 11.8.09 passed by WRC. It was also submitted that NCTE, New Delhi in consultation with the State Government had taken a decision not to further recognize and permit the institutions for conducting Teacher Training Courses (B. Ed. and B.P. Ed.) with a view to achieve planned and co-ordinated development of teacher education system and in order to regulate the growth of teacher education at all levels. Thus, the writ petition filed by the society is devoid of any merits and is liable to be dismissed with cost. 5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner mainly submitted that the Petitioner is having all the requisite qualifications and eligibility criteria for getting recognition to run B. Ed. course and had also fulfilled the deficiencies pointed out by the WRC within 90 days, yet no visiting team was sent to the Petitioner's institution for inspection and without any justifiable grounds its application for recognition was rejected by the impugned order and the appeal was also dismissed by NCTE without any valid reasons. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner also submitted that after receipt of the letter dated 19.2.09 (Annexure P-2) from the WRC, the Petitioner had submitted all the relevant documents vide letter dated 15.5.09 (Annexure P-3), except the order of diversion of land, as the Petitioner was not having the same at that juncture, though he applied for it vide letter dated 20.11.08. On receipt of the letter dated 19.2.09 (Annexure P-2), the Petitioner again sent a reminder to S.D.O. on 23.2.09 and the diversion order issued by competent authority was obtained on 20.05.10. On receipt of the letter dated 19.2.09 (Annexure P-2), the Petitioner again sent a reminder to S.D.O. on 23.2.09 and the diversion order issued by competent authority was obtained on 20.05.10. Attention was drawn in this behalf to the proviso to Section 172 of M.P.L.R. Code, wherein it is provided that if a Bhumiswami of land applies for diversion and the S.D.O. neglects or omits to pass order for three months after receipt of the application for grant of permission or refusal in respect thereof, and the attention of S.D.O. is called by a written communication as to the omission or neglect and if such omission or neglect continues for a period of one month, the S.D.O. shall be deemed to have granted permission without any condition. 7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that the letter dated 19.02.09 (Annexure P-2) issued by WRC had demanded certified copy of the lease/ownership document, which indicates that after processing the application of the Petitioner, the Respondents were quite satisfied with the fact that the Petitioner was in possession of the land, as mentioned in the lease-deed and thereafter registered sale-deed of the land was also submitted to the WRC. As such the Respondents could not raise a contention that the Petitioner was not in possession of the land on the date of application for recognition, as required under Regulation 8(7) of Regulations 2007, and no case different from the impugned order passed by WRC could be set up later on. Reliance was placed in this behalf on the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and Anr. v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Ors. reported in AIR 1978 SC 851 ( 8). 8. Learned Counsel for Respondents NCTE, on the other hand, submitted that the Petitioner failed to make good the deficiencies pointed out by WRC vide letter dated 19.2.09 (Annexure P-2) within 90 days, as required by regulation 7(1) of Regulations 2007, therefore, WRC rejected the application of the Petitioner for grant of recognition to its college to run B. Ed. course for the reasons enumerated in the impugned order dated 11.8.09 (Annexure P-6). course for the reasons enumerated in the impugned order dated 11.8.09 (Annexure P-6). Learned Counsel for Respondents No. 1 and 2 strenuously urged that the registered sale-deed of the land filed by the Petitioner was dated 14.11.08, while the application for grant of recognition was filed by the Petitioner on 23.10.08, which indicates that the Petitioner had no land for the purpose of running B. Ed. course at the time of making the application for recognition, as required by regulation 8(7) of the Regulations 2007. Learned Counsel for Respondents NCTE also submitted that any subsequent filing of the documents would be of no legal consequence and the application for recognition was liable to be rejected for want of compliance of mandatory requirements; the application for grant of recognition to the Petitioner was thus rightly rejected by WRC and the dismissal of the Petitioner's appeal by NCTE was also justified. 9. Placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Union of India and Ors. v. Shah Goverdhan L. Kabra Teachers' College (2002)8 SCC 228 learned Counsel for the Respondents NCTE submitted that NCTE is an expert body created under the provisions of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 and Parliament has imposed upon such expert body the duty to maintain the standards of education, particularly, in relation to teachers' education, the matters of recognition or de-recognition should not be lightly interfered with. 10. We have considered the rival submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 11. Indisputably, after receipt of the application for grant of recognition to the Petitioner's institution to run B. Ed. course, letter dated 19.2.09 (Annexure P-2) was issued by WRC to the Petitioner pointing out certain deficiencies and to make them good within a period of 90 days, as required by regulation 7(1) of Regulations and Norms and Standards 2007 (in short 'Regulations 2007'). The deficiencies pointed out by annexure P-2 were as follows: 1. Certified copy of Land ownership/lease documents has not been submitted as per Regulation 8(8). 2. The deficiencies pointed out by annexure P-2 were as follows: 1. Certified copy of Land ownership/lease documents has not been submitted as per Regulation 8(8). 2. Approved Building Plan from competent authority is not submitted stipulated in the instructions enclosed with the application prescribed under Clause 5(1) of the NCTE (Recognition Norms procedure) Regulations, 2007, approved building plan along completion certificate (if the building has already been constructed from the concerned competent authority) is required to be submitted. 3. The institution is not having built-up area as required for the course. 4. Land use certificate approved by S.D.M./Collector/Tahsildar (CLU) 5. Undertaking duly not submitted. 6. The copy of Land Title Certificate not attached. 12. The letter dated 15.5.09 (Annexure P-3) sent by the Petitioner to the Regional Director WRC, however, indicates that certain deficiencies, as pointed out by the Respondents vide annexure P-2, were removed by the Petitioner and the copy of registered sale-deed dated 14.11.08 effecting transfer of 1 acre of land, i.e. 4,046.86 sq. mts. in the name of Petitioner-society, which was more than the area of 2500 sq. mts. of land required for running B. Ed. course as per Rules 5.1.1 of Appendix 4 of Regulations 2007, was also submitted. The letter dated 15.7.09 (Annexure P-4) sent to the WRC also indicates that other deficiencies were also removed and request was made to the WRC to conduct inspection of the Petitioner's college by a visiting team. However, admittedly, no inspection of the Petitioner's college was conducted, although required fee for inspection was already deposited, and vide order dated 11.8.09 (Annexure P-6) WRC rejected the application of the Petitioner for grant of recognition to its college to run B. Ed. course because following deficiencies were not removed by the institution: (i) Land is meant for agriculture and not teacher education. (ii) CLU not submitted. (iii) Original FD Rs for Reserve Fund not submitted. (iv) FDR for endowment fund is only for 12 months. (v) Built up area and khasra number not mentioned in the affidavit. 13. The impugned order (Annexure P-6) per se reveals that ownership of land was not a ground to reject the Petitioner's application for grant of recognition, and the recognition was not refused for want of ownership or possession on the required land. (v) Built up area and khasra number not mentioned in the affidavit. 13. The impugned order (Annexure P-6) per se reveals that ownership of land was not a ground to reject the Petitioner's application for grant of recognition, and the recognition was not refused for want of ownership or possession on the required land. On the other hand, the first clause in the rejection order (Annexure P-6) was that the land was meant for agriculture and not teacher education. Petitioner's ownership of land or possession on the date of application for recognition was not an issue raised in the impugned order (Annexure P-6). Therefore, in view of the law enunciated in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill (supra), the plea of non-compliance of regulation 8(7) of Regulations 2007, as put forward by the Respondents, can not be allowed to prevail. It would be profitable to quote the following observation made by their Lordships in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill (Supra): The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. 14. Needless to repeat that vide registered sale-deed executed in its favour, the Petitioner-society had acquired ownership in the land required to run B. Ed. course, of which it was already in possession vide lease-deed since the date of application for grant of recognition. A copy of registered sale-deed dated 14.11.08, as we have already noted, was submitted to the WRC along with building map etc. vide letter dated 15.5.09 (Annexure P-3), i.e. within 90 days from the date of receipt of deficiency letter dated 19.2.09 (Annexue P-2). 15. The Petitioner has also filed certain additional documents by way of an application for taking them on record, the application though opposed, we are inclined to allow the same, as the documents are germane for fair adjudication of the matters in issue. 15. The Petitioner has also filed certain additional documents by way of an application for taking them on record, the application though opposed, we are inclined to allow the same, as the documents are germane for fair adjudication of the matters in issue. These documents included the land use certificate issued by S.D.M., Betul dated 20.05.10 in favour of the Petitioner as well as the application dated 20.11.08 filed by the Petitioner for diversion of land and the reminder letter dated 23.2.09 dispatched soon after the issue of deficiency letter dated 19.2.09 (Annexure P-2). In view of deeming provision, as envisaged in proviso to Section 172 of M.P.L.R. Code with regard to neglect or omission of the S.D.M. to make the order of permission or refusal in respect of the diversion within stipulated time, no fault can be attributed to the Petitioner if the land use certificate was issued later. The Proviso to Section 172 of M.P.L.R. Code reads as under: Provided that should the Sub-Divisional Officer neglect or omit for three months after the receipt of an application under Sub-section (1) to make and deliver to the applicant an order of permission or refusal in respect thereof, and the applicant has by written communication called the attention of the Sub-Divisional Officer to the omission or neglect, and such omission or neglect continues for a further period of one month, the Sub-Divisional Officer shall be deemed to have granted the permission without any condition. 16. There was also a declaration of required built up area of 26263.44 sq. ft. of land in the affidavit of the authorized person of the Petitioner-society. Although, the aforesaid affidavit and other documents regarding built up area, the required undertaking and FDR etc. were filed subsequently, but they were evidently submitted to the WRC by the Petitioner vide its letter dated 15.7.09 (Annexure P-4), i.e. prior to the order dated 11.8.09 (Annexure P-6) passed by WRC, as also prior to order dated 8.10.09 (Annexure P-7) passed by NCTE in appeal. Even though the decision to reject the application of the Petitioner for grant of recognition was taken by WRC in its 121st meeting held on 8.07.09, yet the NCTE/Respondent No. 1, while passing the order (Annexure P-7) in appeal on 8.10.09, could have considered all these documents. 17. Even though the decision to reject the application of the Petitioner for grant of recognition was taken by WRC in its 121st meeting held on 8.07.09, yet the NCTE/Respondent No. 1, while passing the order (Annexure P-7) in appeal on 8.10.09, could have considered all these documents. 17. Apposite to add that in the light of the observation made by their Lordships in para 8 in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill (Supra) the submission of the Respondents No. 1 and 2 that the NCTE, New Delhi in consultation with the State Govt. had taken a decision not to further recognize or permit the institutions for conducting teacher training courses, is also not sustainable. 18. In the wake of aforesaid, we find it appropriate that the matter of grant of recognition to the Petitioner's institution to run B. Ed. course should be considered afresh by WRC. We accordingly quash the impugned orders (Annexure P-6 and P-7) and remit the matter to WRC for deciding Petitioner's application for grant of recognition to run B. Ed. course afresh in accordance with law. 19. We accordingly dispose of the writ petition with following directions: (i) ThePetitioner to submit all the requisite documents before WRC within fifteen days from today. (ii) The WRC shall consider all the documents and eligibility criteria of the Petitioner's college for running B. Ed. course afresh in accordance with law and thereafter conduct an inspection of the Petitioner's institution by visiting team of experts in accordance with Regulations 2007. (iii)The WRC shall then decide afresh the application of the Petitioner-society for grant of recognition to run B. Ed. course in accordance with law. No order as to costs.