Judgment : 1. Rule, with the consent of the parties, made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The above petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 26/4/2011, by which order the respondent no.1 herein has withdrawn permission to run the D.Ed. Course granted to the petitioner no.1 – Trust. 3. Shorn of unnecessary details, a few facts necessary for adjudication of the above petition can be cited thus The petitioner no.1 is a Public Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The petitioner no.1 has established College of Education known as The Late Sanjay Tompe and Late Sameer Deshmukh College of Education, ShirasgaonBand, Tq.Chandur Bazaar, Distt.Amravati. The petitioner no.1 was desirous of conducting the D.Ed. Course in the said College and therefore applied to the respondent no.1 for permission with all the necessary requisites for such an application. The petitioner had annexed the Form No.6 in respect of the land in question wherein College of the petitionerTrust was situated. The petitioner had also annexed the order passed by the SubDivisional Officer, Achalpur by which the proposal of the Secretary of the petitioner-Trust for conversion of the said land in non-agriculture use was sanctioned by the Revenue Authority by the order dated 13/5/1972 and the extract of the Public Trust Register (PTR) wherein the land in question being survey Nos.10/1A was shown in the name of the petitioner – Trust. The said proposal of the petitioner for running the D.Ed. course was considered by the respondent no.1 and by an order dated 1426/ 3/2008 the respondent no.1 issued the recognition order in favour of the petitioner – Trust for running the said D.Ed. Course on the terms and conditions mentioned in the said order. In terms of Clause 7, the respondent no.1 has reserved to itself the right to cancel the recognition for contravention of any of the conditions on which the recognition has been granted . 4. It appears that the petitioner was issued a show cause notice dated 4/6/2010 to show cause as to why the recognition order issued to it should not be withdrawn on the ground that the land shown as belonging to the petitioner – Trust in its proposal is not in the name of the Trust – Institution. 4. It appears that the petitioner was issued a show cause notice dated 4/6/2010 to show cause as to why the recognition order issued to it should not be withdrawn on the ground that the land shown as belonging to the petitioner – Trust in its proposal is not in the name of the Trust – Institution. The petitioner accordingly showed cause by filing its reply on 5/7/2010 and inter alia pointed out that the land is, in fact, in the name of the Trust and is also accordingly shown in the PTR of the Charity Commissioner. The respondent no.1 considered the said reply and passed the order dated 30/12/2010 withdrawing the recognition granted to the petitioner – Trust. 5. Aggrieved by the said order dated 30/12/2010, the petitioner filed an Appeal before the National Council for Teacher Education i.e. respondent no.1, which Appeal has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 26/4/2011. The Appellate Authority has confirmed the order passed by the Western Region Council of the respondent no.2 that the land in question was not standing in the name of the petitioner – Trust but was in the name of an individual. As indicated above, it is this order which is impugned in the present petition. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 7. The principal contention of Shri A.S.Chandurkar, the learned counsel for the petitioners, was that in view of the fact that there was no change in circumstance namely that the land in question in Survey No. 10/1A is still standing in the name of the petitioner – Trust, there was no occasion for the respondent no.1 to withdraw recognition granted to the petitioner no.1 to conduct the D.Ed. Course. The learned counsel would contend that if the respondent no.1 has found it fit to grant recognition on the same set of facts then it was not open for it to cancel the recognition without there being any change in circumstances in respect of the land in question which continues to stand in the name of the Trust in the PTR of the Charity Commissioner. 8. 8. Per contra, it is submitted by Shri C.S.Kaptan, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1, that the authorities i.e. the Western Region Council as well as the Appellate Authority have proceeded on the basis that the land is standing in the name of the President of the Trust i.e. Shri G.S.Tompe and therefore, the respondent no.1 as well as the Appellate Authority have recorded a finding that it is not in the name of the Trust but in individual’s name. The learned counsel tried to oppose the petition but not with any deal of conviction. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, in my view, the order of withdrawal dated 30/12/2010 as well as the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 26/4/2011 cannot be sustained. In my view, both the orders suffer from a misconception in asmuch as both the authorities have proceeded on the basis that the land is not standing in the name of the petitioner – Trust but in the name of the individual. As mentioned herein above, the petitioner had produced the relevant material on record, which has been referred to in the earlier part of this order, including the extract of the public trust register wherein the land in question is shown as the property of the petitioner no.1 – Trust. Merely because the name of the President is shown in the documents, that would not make it the property of an individual when it has been specifically entered in the PTR as the property of the Trust. The documents in question unmistakably and unequivocally point out that the said land is the property of the Trust and not of the President in his individual capacity. Both the authorities i.e. the Western Region Council as well as the Appellate Authority have therefore proceeded on a wrong premise and have thereafter adjudicated the matter. In my view, therefore, both the orders are unsustainable and are required to be quashed and set aside and are accordingly quashed and set aside. The petition is allowed, Rule is accordingly made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) with parties to bear their respective costs.