Judgment :- 1. The writ petitioner is stated to be a minority institution run by its Correspondent, A.A.J.Ashokar. An application for recognition was made to the Regional Committee of National Council for Teacher Education on 26.9.2007 for recognition of its one year B.Ed. course and that came to be rejected. As against that, an appeal was filed under Section 18 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act (for brevity, "the Act") and that was also rejected by the Appellate Authority. 2. In a writ petition, viz., W.P.No.4419 of 2010, this Court, on the basis that the petitioner has not pressed the prayer in the said writ petition and sought permission to file fresh application, granted permission to the petitioner to submit a fresh application for recognition within one week. Recording the said statement, the said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 12.3.2010. 3. The petitioner, thereafter, made a fresh application for recognition on 17.3.2010. That application came to be rejected. Being aggrieved, the petitioner again approached this Court by filing W.P.No.11358 of 2010. This Court, by order dated 29.6.2010, while disposing of the said writ petition, having found that against the order of rejection the petitioner has got a right of appeal under Section 18 of the Act, has permitted the petitioner to file such appeal. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed a statutory appeal under Section 18 of the Act. The Appellate Authority, while allowing the appeal, has recognised the petitioner as a minority institution being run by its Correspondent as an individual. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner made an application on 5.10.2010. The Regional Director has issued a show cause notice for compliance of certain requirements, for which the petitioner has given a detailed representation on 11.1.2011 and ultimately, the Regional Director of National Council for Teacher Education, viz., the second respondent, has passed the impugned order dated 3.3.2011 rejecting the application on two grounds, viz., (i) as per the affidavit submitted, in respect of the area owned by the petitioner it is stated that 13680.774 sq.ft., which is inadequate for the B.Ed. Course and as per the NCTE norms, the minimum required land is 2500 sq.mtrs.; and (ii) the institution has submitted two private lease deeds, which is not in accordance with the NCTE Regulations, since as per the Regulations, either the land must be owned by the institution or lease must be from the Government and not from the private person. 5. As far as the first deficiency pointed by the second respondent in the impugned order is concerned, according to the petitioner, there is a mistake and in fact, as per the documents, he is possessing more than the minimum required extent of 2500 sq.mtrs. of land. But as far as the second deficiency is concerned, it is the case of the petitioner that since the Correspondent himself is the owner of the property, the lease given by the Correspondent in favour of the institution should be treated as an ownership on the part of the institution. 6. Per contra, Mr.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 has brought to the notice of this Court about the provision in the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms & Procedure) Regulations, 2009, wherein in Regulation 8 which contemplates the conditions for grant of recognition, under sub-clause 7(i) it is stipulated as follows: "8. Conditions for grant of recognition.- (1) to (6) *** (7) (i) No institution shall be granted recognition under these Regulations unless the institution or society sponsoring the institution 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 or Government institutions for a period of not less than 30 years. In cases where under relevant State or Union Territory laws the maximum permissible lease period is less than 30 years, the State Government or Union Territory Administration law shall prevail. However, no building shall be taken on lease for running any teacher training course." 7. The said clause makes it clear that either the institution must own the land or if it is a lessee, such lease must be from the Government in respect of the Government owned land. However, no building shall be taken on lease for running any teacher training course." 7. The said clause makes it clear that either the institution must own the land or if it is a lessee, such lease must be from the Government in respect of the Government owned land. In view of the said condition stipulated in the Regulations, it is not possible to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that on the facts of the present case since the Correspondent and the institution happen to be one and the same person, the land owned by the Correspondent should be deemed to be the land owned by the institution. 8. Admittedly, the petitioner himself has made application to the second respondent only on the basis of the lease deed executed by the Correspondent in favour of the institution. If that is so, certainly it is not in conformity with the statutory Regulations which has been prescribed by the second respondent, which is binding on the petitioner. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since the Correspondent as well as the institution are one and the same, necessary steps will be taken for the purpose of transferring the property in the name of the institution so as to enable the institution to file a fresh application for recognition. 10. The petitioner/institution being a recognised minority institution as held by the Appellate Authority, there is no bar for the filing of such application at any point of time on complying with the various other statutory requirements. 11. In such view of the matter, I do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the second respondent. Hence, this writ petition stands dismissed, however liberty is granted to the petitioner to take appropriate steps for transferring the lands in the name of the institution and thereafter make necessary application to the authorities concerned under the Act by complying with the various requirements and if such application is made, it is for the second respondent to pass orders on merits and in accordance with law. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that after taking necessary steps, application will be made within four weeks. It is made clear that on such application being made, the second respondent shall take decision expeditiously, in the manner known to law. No costs. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that after taking necessary steps, application will be made within four weeks. It is made clear that on such application being made, the second respondent shall take decision expeditiously, in the manner known to law. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2011 is closed.