JUDGMENT A.H. Joshi, J.: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally, by consent. 2. The petitioner is running Teacher's Education College at Chalisgaon. The Petition was served with impugned communications dated 5th September, 2012 and 15th September, 2012. 3. Summary of contents of the letters under challenge is as follows : (a) Names of the petitioner's college was not included in the list of colleges to which admission would be given in the current academic year. (b) The petitioner has failed to secure fresh order of permission from NCTE (Western Region) Bhopal, to run the College. © By advertising for admission, petitioner has disobeyed the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court. (d) Petitioner ought not admit the students for the academic year 20/12/2013. 4. Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 have opposed the petition. As regards objection to petitioner's running courses in the affidavit in reply filed by respondent no. 5 it is stated in paragraph no. 4, which reads as follows:" 4. I say that, it is true that the name of the petitioner institution does not find place in the initial list of 291 institutions submitted before the Hon'ble High Court at Nagpur. However, it seems that, the respondent no. 2 had submitted an additional list of 10 institutions to be covered under the orders passed by Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 2701 of 2008. I say that, accordingly the petitioner institution was informed that the High Power Commission of Teachers Education constituted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India would be visiting the petitioner's institution at Chalisgaon for inspection vide letter dated 12.04.2012 (Annexed at Exhibit F Page 33 to the Writ Petition). The said communication was issued by the Respondent No.3Director. However, the petitioner Institution has disagreed with the proposed inspection on the ground that the said Institution was not covered under the order of the Hon'ble High Court, Bench at Nagpur. Consequently the High Power Commission was unable to inspect the facilities at the Petitioner institution. I say that, the High Power Commission in it's report submitted in August, 2012, more particularly in Volume 2 at Page 244 has referred to the aforesaid facts and concluded that the petitioner institution does not qualify to be recognized as a Teachers Education Institution to run a D.Ed. Course. I say that, the High Power Commission in it's report submitted in August, 2012, more particularly in Volume 2 at Page 244 has referred to the aforesaid facts and concluded that the petitioner institution does not qualify to be recognized as a Teachers Education Institution to run a D.Ed. Course. I say that, the said report has been submitted before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. I say that, in view of the findings of the High Power Commission of Teachers Education constituted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the answering Respondents have rightly issued the impugned communication to the petitioner institution. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit R1 is the true and correct copy of the extract from the report of the High Power Commission constituted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, dealing with the petitioner's institution." 5. To reconfirm what Government has stated in the affidavit, we had directed the State Government to explain certain point, which we had recorded in our order dated 09.01.2013, namely:" 12. We, therefore, call upon the State Government to explain and specify as to whether the action is being initiated against the petitioner on its own merits and on account of deficiencies, independent of the earlier litigation i.e. Writ Petition NO. 2701/2008 of Nagpur Bench." 6. The respondents have orally replied through AGP stating that the action of the respondents is not taken independently, rather it is based on the observations contained in the report of the Committee of Hon'ble Justice J.S.Verma, as appointed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 7. We are of considered view that if the State Government or NCTE is viewing the illegality or deficiencies in the college run by the petitioner to be viewed independently and if independent action is permissible in law, the State Government or authority concerned is not precluded from taking such action, however action impugned based on assumption that Hon'ble Supreme Court and passed any order and therefore committee headed by Hon'ble Justice Varma has identified the petitioner and has proposed the action against the petitioner is seen to be totally erroneous. 8. We, therefore, make the Rule absolute, directing that petitioner's claim as recognized college for Teacher's education be given same treatment as given to any other College legally run. 9. 8. We, therefore, make the Rule absolute, directing that petitioner's claim as recognized college for Teacher's education be given same treatment as given to any other College legally run. 9. We once again clarify that this judgment has not restrained the State Government or Competent Authorities in law, from initiating appropriate action against the petitioner in the event if any deficiencies were/are noticed by the authorities in the functioning of the petitioner Institution. 10. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (B) and forgoing para No. 8.