JUDGMENT Oral Judgment: Anoop V. Mohta, J. 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Learned Adv., Mr. P.S. Chawhan waives service for respondents. By consent, this Writ Petition is taken up for hearing. 2. The petitioner no.1 being a Linguistic Minority Educational Institution as recognized by the State of Maharashtra, applied for conducting B.Ed. Course. However, the said application was rejected mainly on the ground that the Staff List approved by the Examining Body was not submitted. 3. Against the said rejection, an appeal under Section 18 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, was preferred. However, filing of the same was delayed by one month and thirteen days and it was, thus, beyond the period of limitation of sixty days. Therefore, without considering the merits of the matter, the appeal was dismissed. That resulted into rejection of application for permission to conduct B.Ed. Course. This was mainly on the ground of non-submission of staff list. Section 18 Sub-clause (2) of the Act is reproduced as under:- 18. (1) Any person aggrieved by an order made under section 14 or section 15 or section 17 of the Act may prefer an appeal to the Council within such period as may be prescribed. (2) No appeal shall be admitted if it is preferred after the expiry of the period prescribed therefor: Provided that an appeal may be admitted after the expiry of the period prescribed therefor, if the appellant satisfies the Council that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the prescribed period.- 4. It is clear from the provisions so noted above that if a case is made out and sufficient cause is shown, the Council may entertain/admit the appeal even after expiry of the so called period. 5. Considering the averments made, and for the reason noted above, as petitioners-claim/application was rejected solely on the ground of delay without considering the merits of the matter and even without noting the reasons so mentioned by the petitioners for the delay, in our view, grave injustice and hardship is caused to the petitioners. 6. Even considering para 21 and the grounds so raised revolving around Section 14, the action of rejection of petitioner’s application without giving them an opportunity is unsustainable and foreclosed their rights. 6. Even considering para 21 and the grounds so raised revolving around Section 14, the action of rejection of petitioner’s application without giving them an opportunity is unsustainable and foreclosed their rights. The impugned order so passed of not admitting the appeal is required to be quashed and set aside also for the reason of non-grant of opportunity and hearing. The order is in breach of principles of natural justice also. The respondents to re-hear the appeal and pass appropriate order, including on merits, if case is made, in accordance with law. 7. Resultantly, the following order:- [a] Impugned order dated 1st March, 2013 is quashed and set aside. [b] The respondents to consider the appeal so filed by the petitioners on merits by giving an opportunity to both the parties. [c] Petition is accordingly allowed in terms of Prayer Clause [a]. [d] The respondents to pass appropriate order in accordance with law, as early as possible, and preferably within two months so far as Prayer Clause [b] is concerned. 08. Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.