Judgment :- 1. This judgment shall dispose of the W.P.Nos.8582 & 8583 of 2010, as the common question of law and facts are involved. 2. For the sake of brevity, the facts have been taken from W.P.No.8583 of 2010. 3. Mother Terasa Educational & Charitable Trust, Mettu Salai, Illuppur Post, Pudukkottai District established Mother Terasa College of Education for Women in the academic year 2006-07. The Regional Director, National Council for Teacher Education granted recognition to the petitioner College on 01.09.2006. The petitioner College has been recognised to conduct B.Ed. Degree Course from the academic year 2006-07 with an annual intake of 100 students. The petitioner College was also recognised by the Regional Director, National Council for Teacher Education, Bangalore, the second respondent, on 27.09.2007 for conducting M.Ed. Post Graduate Degree Course with an annual intake of 25 students. 4. The petitioner Collage was originally affiliated to the Bharathidasan University, Trichy and thereafter by virtue of the Tamil Nadu Teacher Education University Act, 2008, it came under the affiliation of the Tamil Nadu Teacher Education University. Besides, the Mother Terasa Educational & Charitable Trust is also running other educational institutions; viz., (1) Mother Terasa College of Education (Co-Ed) for conducting B.Ed. Degree Course, under the order of recognition dated 6.7.2005 from the academic year 2005-06 with annual intake of 100 students; (2) Mother Terasa Teacher Training Institute for Women for conducting Diploma in Teacher Education Course with an annual intake of 100 students duly recognised by the second respondent vide recognition order dated 22.11.2005; (3) Mother Terasa College of Education (Co-Ed) for conducting M.Ed. PG Degree Course, under the recognition dated 8.11.2006; (4) Terasa Teacher Training Institute (Co-Ed) with an annual intake of 50 students under the orders of the second respondent dated 18.06.2007. 5. Mother Terasa Educational & Charitable Trust, owns land for its educational institutions at survey No.88-3B/2A at Mettu Salai, Illuppur Town Panchayat, Pudukkottai District, wherein they constructed buildings for more than 36,000 sq.ft., out of which 34,143 sq.ft. stands approved by the Director of Town and Country Planning vide its approval dated 13.7.2006 and Illuppur Town Panchayat approval order dated 30.8.2006. 6. Mother Terasa Educational & Charitable Trust is also having land at Survey No.341-1A and 344-1A at Mettu salai, Veerapatty Village Panchayat, Illuppur post, Pudukottai district, where an approved built up area of 39,172 sq.ft. stands approved by the Director of Town and Country Planning vide its approval dated 13.7.2006 and Illuppur Town Panchayat approval order dated 30.8.2006. 6. Mother Terasa Educational & Charitable Trust is also having land at Survey No.341-1A and 344-1A at Mettu salai, Veerapatty Village Panchayat, Illuppur post, Pudukottai district, where an approved built up area of 39,172 sq.ft. is available which is being utilised for conducting three institutions of the petitioners management viz., Mother Terasa College of Education for Women, Mother Terasa College of Education for Women (M.Ed. Course) (the petitioner) and Terasa Teacher Training Institute (Co-Ed.). 7. The case set up by the petitioner is that the Regional Director, National Council for Teacher Education intimated the petitioner in October2008 that based on the report submitted by Sri.Satyam, I.A.S., (Retd.) to the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Govt. of India, the 71 Teacher Educational Institutions/ Colleges, which were granted recognition by the second respondent, i.e. Regional Committee in its 116th Meeting held on 22nd and 23rd August, 2006, are to be re-inspected to verify whether those institutions are maintaining the norms and standards prescribed by the NCTE. The petitioner institution was inspected by the visiting team of NCTE on 17.11.2008. 8. On the basis of the inspection, the Regional Director issued show cause notice dated 06.03.2009 regarding the deficiencies pointed out by the visiting team. In the notice, it was pointed out that built up space of 22,653 sq.ft. was not adequate for all the existing B.Ed. and M.Ed. Programmes. Therefore, the petitioner was required to submit the building plan, building completion certificate. The petitioner was also informed that the books in the library was not adequate for teacher education courses and furthermore, the management was to submit the details of exclusive land available for Teacher training Institute and the petitioner College for verification. 9. The petitioner submitted reply to the show cause notice stating therein that the management of the petitioner was having 26.28 acres of land at Survey No.341-1A and 344-1A, out of which five acres of land has been allotted for petitioner College alone and the built up space of 22,653 sq.ft. was exclusively allotted for petitioner College alone. Along with the reply, the building completion certificate showing that the petitioner College with B.Ed. and M.Ed. Courses is located at the building of 22,653 sq.ft. and the toilet block of 1,650 sq.ft. was exclusively allotted for petitioner College alone. Along with the reply, the building completion certificate showing that the petitioner College with B.Ed. and M.Ed. Courses is located at the building of 22,653 sq.ft. and the toilet block of 1,650 sq.ft. at the ground, first and second floors, has also been submitted. 10. The respondent No.2 thereafter issued a notice dated 31.07.2009 pointing out that the reply submitted by the petitioner was considered by the Committee and it was decided to issue show cause notice under Section 17 of the NCTE Act and call for the documents regarding the infrastructural and instructional facilities for B.Ed., D.T.Ed. and M.Ed. Courses of the petitioner management. The petitioner was also directed to submit land documents of the petitioner College, approved building plan, building completion certificate and other infrastructure and instructional facilities. 11. In response to the said notice, the petitioner submitted its reply dated 8.8.2009, which was duly received and acknowledged by the respondent No.2. In the said reply, the petitioner has stated that the petitioners management i.e., Mother Teresa Educational & Charitable Trust owns lands of 26.28 acres in Survey No.341-1A and 344-1A and the said lands are situated in Veerapatty Village Panchayat and that the sale deed was registered on 17.10.2005. As per the norms of NCTE, five acres of land was exclusively allotted to the petitioner College on 14.07.2006. Thereafter, D.T.Ed. Institute and the M.Ed. Course under the petitioners management were started after getting necessary approval, in the said land and building and that the necessary building plan was duly approved by the Veerapatty Village Panchayat. It was also pointed out in the reply that the management of the petitioner was also running Mother Teresa Collage of Education (Co-Ed), Mother Teresa College of Education for M.Ed. Course (Co-Ed.) and Terasa Teacher Training Institute for women. 12. In the reply, it was specifically mentioned that two separate Survey numbers wherein separate buildings were built up with the approval of the respective local authorities and the institutions run by the petitioner management are located separately in the five acres of land. The postal address of both the buildings is same being adjacent to each other and belonging to the petitioners management. 13. The postal address of both the buildings is same being adjacent to each other and belonging to the petitioners management. 13. The stand of the petitioner is that it is having necessary built up area in separate land and building wherein the institutions are located and the buildings available for each of the institutions is more than what is required under the norms of the NCTE. 14. The reliance is placed on the following chart in support of the contention. “Table” 15. The case of the petitioner is that inspite of reply to the show cause notice, the respondent No.2 passed the impugned order of withdrawal of recognition, dated 04.02.2010 for each of the institution. 16. The case of the petitioner is that order dated 4.02.2010 has been passed withdrawing the recognition granted to the petitioner institution, on the ground that as per the documents furnished by the institutions management, they have a total built up area of only 39,172.36 sq.ft. which can accommodate, as per the NCTE norms, only one D.T.Ed., one B.Ed., and one M.Ed. Programmes. Therefore, the Committee has permitted the petitioners management, the continuance of the earliest sanctioned programmes viz., D.T.Ed., B.Ed., and M.Ed. and ordered withdrawal of other educational programmes of M.Ed., B.Ed., B.P.Ed., and B.Ed.(additional) for which no built up space is available for running the institution. 17. The case of the petitioner is that management of the petitioner institution is having built up area of 39,172 Sq.ft. at Survey No.341-1A and 344-1A at Mettu Salai, Veerapatty Village, Illuppur Post, Pudukkottai District and in these buildings, the following Collages are functioning: 1) Mother Terasa College of Education for Women (M.Ed.) 2) Mother Terasa College of Education for Women (B.Ed.) 3) Terasa Teacher Training Institute (Co-Ed.) Apart from this, the petitioners management is having the built up area of 34,143 Sq.ft. at Survey No.88 3B/2A at Mettu Salai, Illuppur Town Panchayat, wherein institutions viz., Mother Terasa College of Education (Co-Ed.) (B.Ed.), Mother Terasa College of Education (M.Ed.) (Co-Ed.) and Mother Terasa Teacher Training Institute for Women (D.T.Ed.) are functioning with necessary approval from the second respondent. 18. at Survey No.88 3B/2A at Mettu Salai, Illuppur Town Panchayat, wherein institutions viz., Mother Terasa College of Education (Co-Ed.) (B.Ed.), Mother Terasa College of Education (M.Ed.) (Co-Ed.) and Mother Terasa Teacher Training Institute for Women (D.T.Ed.) are functioning with necessary approval from the second respondent. 18. The order of cancellation of recognition is challenged primarily on the ground that petitioner Colleges are located at Survey No.344-1A and 341-1A at Veerapatty Village, Illuppur Post, Pudukottai District with an approved building measuring 39,172 Sq.ft., whereas the built up area for all these Colleges according to NCTE norms is 32,293 Sq.ft. 19. When the inspection was carried out at the petitioner institution, only for B.Ed. Course based on the report of Sri.Sathyam Committee and therefore, the action could be taken with regard to that institution alone and not other institutions of the petitioners management, as no inspection was carried out with respect to other institutions. 20. It is the case of the petitioner that even as per the norms of NCTE, there is an excess area of 6800 Sq.ft. which as per the norms was sufficient for running all the Courses. 21. It is submitted by the petitioner that the institutions are being run by the petitioner management for the past several years under the affiliation to respective examining bodies and therefore, before withdrawing approval, the procedure as contemplated under Sec.13 and 17 of NCTE Act read with Rule 8 of NCTE Rule, 1997, should have been strictly followed. But the impugned order has been passed without following Rule 8 of NCTE Rule, 1997. The order is said to be in violation of Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. 22. The writ petition is opposed on the ground that the petitioner has equally efficacious alternative statutory remedy of appeal and therefore, writ petition is not competent. 23. On merit, the stand taken is that in view of the irregularities which took place in granting recognition in the SRC 116th meeting by the then Regional Committee, the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) has appointed a Committee headed by Sri. Sathyam, I.A.S. (Retd.) to inspect the institutions numbering 71 for which recognition was granted in the said meeting. 24. In pursuance thereto, the petitioner institution was inspected on 17.11.2008. Sathyam, I.A.S. (Retd.) to inspect the institutions numbering 71 for which recognition was granted in the said meeting. 24. In pursuance thereto, the petitioner institution was inspected on 17.11.2008. The Committee at the time of inspection took built up area measurement including video recording and came to the conclusion that area was not enough to accommodate several courses conducted by the petitioner in the said premises. The measurement was duly assigned by the petitioners management. It was on the basis of said measurement, show cause notice was issued. However, reply to the show cause notice was not found acceptable. The second show cause notice was issued on 31.07.2008 which was also replied to. The second respondent considered all the relevant documents and since only a total of 39,172.36 Sq.ft. built up area was available and as per NCTE norms only one D.Ed. One B.Ed and one M.Ed. Programes could be accommodated, the second respondent decided to allow the said Courses and withdraw the recognition in respect of the other programes. The withdrawal of the recognition for the year 2010-2011 was not affected the Courses then going on. 25. The case of the respondents is that instead of filing statutory appeal, the petitioner waited for vacation and thereafter moved this writ petition to obtain interim order on the pretext of summer vacation. It is also pleaded that from time to time, application for interim order was moved only prior to the commencement of vacation. 26. The stand is also taken that admissions were made after the interim order seized to be operated and therefore, no direction can be given to the respondents for having admitted the students. The stand of the respondents is that conduct of the petitioner shows that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed and direction be issued for refunding the fee to the admitted students as laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of ABHYUDYA SANSTHA Vs.UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [ (2011)6 SCC 145 )]. 27. Keeping in view of the fact that this Court had entertained the writ petition and even passed interim direction in favour of the petitioner, it would not be proper, at this stage to relegate the petitioner to the remedy of statutory appeal. 28. 27. Keeping in view of the fact that this Court had entertained the writ petition and even passed interim direction in favour of the petitioner, it would not be proper, at this stage to relegate the petitioner to the remedy of statutory appeal. 28. However, the conduct of the petitioner deserves to be depreciated, as the petitioner in the affidavit has not disclosed that alternative statutory remedy is available to the petitioner nor any reasons have been disclosed as to why the said remedy was not availed. However, as the impugned order is prima facie a non speaking order, this writ is considered on merit. 29. On consideration, this Court finds that this writ petition deserves to be allowed for the reasons hereinafter stated. 30. The NCTE issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 6.3.2009 pointing out the following deficiencies. The built up space of 22653.36 sq.ft. is not adequate for all the existing B.Ed., B.Ed. Additional intake, B.P.Ed. and M.Ed. Courses. The Management has to submit the building plan, building completion certificate earmarking space course wise from Government authority. The books in the Library numbering 7119 not adequate for all teacher education courses. The management has to submit the details of exclusive laid available for TTI and Mother Terasa College of Education for Women for verification. The institution has to submit approved faculty list approved by the affiliating body for all existing teacher education courses with details of each faculty member in the format prescribed. 31. The reply was sent to the show cause notice wherein the specific stand taken was that built up space was 22,653.36 sq.ft., exclusively built and used for Mother Terasa College of Education for Women and there was no additional intake for B.Ed. and B.P.Ed. Course in the building. They also enclosed approved building plan with reply to the show cause and also pointed out that the books in the Library was exclusively allotted for Mother Terasa College of Education for Women. 32. It was also stated in the reply that the petitioners management is having 26.28 acres of land in Survey No.341-1A and 344-1A in the name of Mother Terasa Educational & Charitable Trust out of which five acres of land has been exclusively earmarked for Mother Terasa College of Education. The petitioner also enclosed completion certificate showing that the building was constructed on the land belonging to the management. 33. The petitioner also enclosed completion certificate showing that the building was constructed on the land belonging to the management. 33. Thereafter, considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, another notice dated 31.07.2009 was issued pointing out therein, the petitioner should submit the documents regarding infrastructural and instructional facilities for B.Ed., additional intake B.Ed. and M.Ed. Courses run by the management. The documents asked for reads as under: 1. The exclusive own land registered documents for TTI & Mother Terasa College of Education for women to be submitted. 2. The approved building plans, building completion certificate with details of built up space for existing teacher education courses from Government Engineer to be submitted for verification. 3. The infrastructural and instructional facilities available i.e., Library, Labs for all teacher education courses running by the management to be submitted in the enclosed questionnair. 34. The petitioner again submitted reply to the show cause notice pointing out therein Mother Terasa Educational & Charitable Trust owns land measuring 26.28 acres, out of which five acres of land was earmarked for the petitioner College. 35. In the reply, it was also mentioned that all Colleges located in the separate land of 5 acres. The building plan for the said Colleges approved by the Directorate of Town Planning, Chennai was also enclosed. The petitioner also submitted along with reply, copy of the original land documents with copies of Trust resolution. They also enclosed copies of approved building plans for TTI, B.Ed and M.Ed., duly approved courses as also building completion certificate. The petitioner also submitted infrastructural and instructional facilities for existing courses. 36. After considering the reply, the impugned orders have been passed. The operative part of which reads as under: In terms of Section 14(1) of the NCTE Act, 1993 Mother Terasa Educational Charitable Trust, Pudukkotai District, Tamilnadu had submitted an application to Southern Regional Committee of NCTE for grant of recognition to Mother Terasa College of Education for Women, Mettusalai, Illipur, Pudukottai 622102, Tamilnadu for M.Ed. Course of one year duration with an annual intake of 25 students on 12.12.2006. As per directions of Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) to re-inspect all the institutions granted recognition by SRC in its 116th meeting as per the recommendation of Sri.Sathyam Committee reports. The re-inspection for B.Ed course of the institution was carried out on 17.12.2008. Course of one year duration with an annual intake of 25 students on 12.12.2006. As per directions of Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) to re-inspect all the institutions granted recognition by SRC in its 116th meeting as per the recommendation of Sri.Sathyam Committee reports. The re-inspection for B.Ed course of the institution was carried out on 17.12.2008. The visiting team report was placed before SRC in its 169th meeting held on 12-13th January, 2009 and SRC decided to issue show cause notice, accordingly a show cause notice was issued to the institution on 6.3.2009. The institution submitted its reply on 29.4.2009, the same was considered by SRC in its 178th meeting held on 13-14th July 2009 and SRC decided to issue another show cause notice to the institution. Accordingly, notice was issued to the institution on 31.07.2009. The institution has submitted its written representation on 23.10.2009. SRC considered the matter in its 187th meeting held on 29-30 December 2009 and observed that according to the documents furnished by Institutions Management, they have a total built up area of only 39,172.36 sq.ft. Which can accommodate as per NCTE norms, only one D.Ed. One B.Ed. And one M.Ed. Programme. The Committee decided to permit continuance of the earliest sanctioned programmes. D.Ed. (APSO4374), B.P.Ed (APSO5907) and M.Ed.(APSO5802) and further decided to withdraw all other teacher education programmes namely M.Ed (APSO7745), B.Ed.(APSO6021), B.P.Ed (APSO5907) and B.Ed-AI (APSO7624) for which no built up space is available in the campus, as vouchsafed by the Management itself. Now therefore, it is hereby ordered that recognition accorded to Mother Terasa College of Education for Women, Metusalai, Illipur, Pudkottai 622102, Tamilnadu to M.Ed. (APSO7745) course is hereby withdrawn. The institutions is directed not to make any further admission after these withdrawal orders; the ongoing batches of students only would be permitted to complete their courses as a special case. As per section 18 of NCTE Act, 1993 there is provision to prefer an appeal against the above order of withdrawal. A copy of the format to prefer appeal is enclosed along with the order. Also order that a copy of this order be published in the Official Gazette." 37. The reading of the order shows that the competent authority had taken into consideration, the total built up area of the petitioner, i.e., 39,172.36 sq.ft. which could accommodate as per NCTE norms, only one D.T.Ed. and one B.Ed. Programmes. Also order that a copy of this order be published in the Official Gazette." 37. The reading of the order shows that the competent authority had taken into consideration, the total built up area of the petitioner, i.e., 39,172.36 sq.ft. which could accommodate as per NCTE norms, only one D.T.Ed. and one B.Ed. Programmes. 38. The order on the face of it non speaking order. It neither discussed show cause notice nor reply submitted to the show cause notice. 39. It is well settled that quasi judicial authority while acting in exercise of statutory power must act fairly, with open mind while initiating show cause proceedings. The show cause proceedings is meant to give a reasonable opportunity of making objection against the proposed charges indicated in the notice. 40. After receipt of reply to the show cause notice, the authority is bound to record reasons in support of the conclusion, as the reasons are meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done, it must also appear to be done as well. This further operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi judicial or even administrative power. When the impugned order is tested in view of the settled law referred to above, it cannot be sustained in law as the impugned order does not give any reason to reject the defence raised by the petitioner, rather the order does not take note of the stand taken in reply to show cause notice, nor any reasons are disclosed to reject the stand. 41. The reading of the order shows that it has been mechanically passed on the basis of recommendations of the Committee without taking into consideration, the reply submitted by the petitioner pointing out the constructed portion of the building at two places. 42. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 04.02.2010 is ordered to be quashed and the case is remitted back to the Regional Director (incharge) of NCTE, Southern Committee for reconsideration of the matter after taking into consideration the reply submitted and the points raised in reply to the show cause notice by passing a detailed speaking order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No cost.