JUDGMENT T.S. Sivagnanam, J. 1. The writ appeal in W.A.No.1138/2012, is directed against the order dated 4.6.2012, made in the writ petition filed by the appellant-institution in W.P.No.20419/2011. The appellant, an educational institution, challenged an order passed by the second respondent dated 13.1.2012, by which, their application for recognition to start B.Ed. Course came to be rejected. The appellant sought for consequential direction to the second respondent to conduct necessary inspection on the appellant's institution for grant of recognition for the Academic Year 2012-2013. In fact, this was the amended prayer in the writ petition, which was permitted as per order dated 30.1.2012, in M.P.No.2/2012. 2. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order, dismissed the writ petition holding that the stand taken by the second respondent that the appellant has failed to comply with the Regulation 7(1-A) of the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2009, (hereinafter referred to as the said Regulation). Challenging this order, the present writ appeal has been filed. 3. Though the subject matter has had a checkered history and several writ petitions have been filed by the appellant in the past, it may not be necessary to refer to all the earlier litigation and it would suffice to note the following facts for the purpose of considering this appeal. 4. The appellant filed W.P.No.6188/2011, challenging the order passed by the National Council for Teacher Education (in short, NCTE) dated 3.3.2011. By the said order, the appellant's application seeking recognition for one year B.Ed. Degree Course, came to be rejected on the ground that the area owned by the appellant-institution, was inadequate for the B.Ed. Course as per the NCTE Norms, as minimum requirement is 2500 square meters. The other ground for rejection was that two private lease deeds have been submitted by the institution, which are not in accordance with the Regulations stipulating that either the land must be owned by the institution or lease must be from the Government and not from the private person. The other ground for rejection was that two private lease deeds have been submitted by the institution, which are not in accordance with the Regulations stipulating that either the land must be owned by the institution or lease must be from the Government and not from the private person. The writ petition was dismissed by order dated 6.4.2011, with liberty to the appellant-institution to take appropriate steps for transferring the land in the name of the institution and thereafter, make necessary application to the authorities concerned, by complying with various requirements and in the event of such an application being filed by the appellant, the second respondent-NCTE was directed to pass orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law. The Court also recorded the submission of the appellant that they would submit the application after transferring the land, within a period of four weeks. The appellant subsequently, transferred the ownership of the land from the private individual to the institution and submitted a fresh application on 15.4.2011. Since the said application was not processed, they approached this Court by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.17726/2011, wherein, a direction was issued to the second respondent-NCTE to consider the application by order dated 25.8.2011. Once again, the application was rejected on the ground that as per Regulation 5(3) of the said Regulation, the application must be submitted electronically through on-line mode using the web-site of NCTE and the application having not been submitted through on-line mode, it was rejected. However, in the said order, liberty was given to the appellant to file a fresh application as per the said Regulation, on or before 30.9.2011, for the academic year 2012-2013. The appellant challenged this order by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.20419/2011. 5. At the initial stage, the said writ petition was filed challenging the order dated 25.8.2011. Simultaneously, the appellant appears to have submitted an on-line application on 1.9.2011, as per the amended Regulation referred supra. The appellant also paid fees along with the application and submitted the hard copy of the application on 28.10.2011. However, the application dated 1.9.2011, came to be rejected by the NCTE by order dated 13.1.2012, primarily on the ground that the on-line application was not followed by hard copy of the application along with annexures within a period of seven days in terms of Regulation 7(1-A) of the Amended Regulations. However, the application dated 1.9.2011, came to be rejected by the NCTE by order dated 13.1.2012, primarily on the ground that the on-line application was not followed by hard copy of the application along with annexures within a period of seven days in terms of Regulation 7(1-A) of the Amended Regulations. This necessitated the appellant to amend the prayer in the writ petition to challenge the order dated 13.1.2012. 6. The learned Single Judge considered the scope of Regulation 7(1-A) of the Amended Regulation; but, without examining the issue on merits, opined that the writ petitioner ought to have pursued the remedies as against the order dated 25.8.2011, which was initially the subject matter of challenge in W.P.No.20419/2011, and they cannot switch over the challenge to the subsequent order. Therefore, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition for the appellant having failed to meet out the requirements under the Regulation. The appellant being aggrieved by such order, preferred the present writ appeal. 7. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant sought for an interim direction to the officials of NCTE to conduct necessary inspection on the appellant's institution and to submit a report. The Division Bench considered the said plea and after hearing the parties, passed an order dated 16.10.2012, which reads as follows: "3.Mr.M.T.Arunan, learned Counsel appearing for the first and second respondents submitted that second respondent shall conduct an inspection of the appellant institution and submit a report before this Court and thereafter, the matter may be taken up for consideration. 4. In the light of the fair stand taken by the second respondent, there will be a direction to the second respondent to inspect the appellant institution within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Such inspection shall be conducted after issuing notice to the appellant and the appellant is directed to cooperate with the second respondent in the conduct of such inspection. 5. Post after six weeks to enable the second respondent to file the inspection report and their observations." 8. It is to be pointed out that in terms of the above order, there was a direction upon the second respondent to conduct an inspection on the appellant's institution within a period of three weeks, after issuing notice to the appellant. 5. Post after six weeks to enable the second respondent to file the inspection report and their observations." 8. It is to be pointed out that in terms of the above order, there was a direction upon the second respondent to conduct an inspection on the appellant's institution within a period of three weeks, after issuing notice to the appellant. The second respondent did not comply with the order and did not conduct any inspection within the timeframe. Thereafter, the appellant filed Contempt Petition No.1678/2012 for punishing the second respondent for willful disobedience of the order and direction of this Court dated 16.10.2012, passed in this appeal. 9. During the pendency of the contempt petition, the second respondent-NCTE filed review application in Review Application SR No.103663/2012 along with a petition to condone the delay of 117 days in filing the application for review. At the stage of consideration of the application for condonation of delay in filing the review application, the parties to the review application argued the matter on merits. It was contended by NCTE that no instruction was given by them to its Counsel with regard to the inspection, and the question of inspection does not arise. It was further pointed out by them that the appellant has not complied with the mandatory regulation under Regulation 7(1-A) of the Amended Regulation. This Court rejected the review application along with the condone delay petition by order dated 4.11.2013. The operative portion of the said order reads as follows: "4.We do not accept this plea of the review applicants at this stage, moreso, on the Condone Delay Petition. The reasons given in paragraph No.5 are not convincing. Quite apart, we do not find any merit in the submissions made by learned Counsel appearing for the Review Applicants, seeking review of the order passed in M.P.NO.1 of 2012 in W.A.No.1138 of 2012 dated 16.10.2012. A reading of the order passed by this Court clearly pointed out the consideration based on which a direction was given directing the review applicants to inspect the institution within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the order. This Court took into consideration the order passed by the learned Single Judge against which, the Writ Appeal was preferred by the Writ Petitioner. This Court took into consideration the order passed by the learned Single Judge against which, the Writ Appeal was preferred by the Writ Petitioner. That being the case, at this juncture, we do not find any necessity to go into the claim of the Writ Appellant as well as the respondents based on Regulation 7 (1-A) of the NCTE Regulations. In the circumstances, we do not find any justification to condone the delay on the Review Application made. Accordingly, while dismissing the Delay Condonation Petition, we direct the second respondent in the Writ Appeal No.1138 of 2012, to have the inspection done within a period of two weeks from today and file the report immediately on or before 21.11.2013." 10. While dismissing the review application along with the petition for condonation of delay, a direction was issued to the second respondent–NCTE to conduct inspection within a period of two weeks and submit a report. This direction has been complied with and a report dated 19.11.2013, has also been submitted by the NCTE, pointing out the deficiencies, which read as under: "1. Demand Draft bearing no. 180357 for Rs. 40,000/- dtd. 20.10.2012 and DD no. 180358 for Rs. 1000/- dtd. 20.10.2012 needs to be revalidated. Further, the institution is required to submit additional processing fee of Rs. 9,000/- (As per NCTE regulations 2009 the processing fee fixed is Rs. 50,000/- copy enclosed). 2. Title to Land: Family Settlement Deed executed on 11.04.2011 by Mrs. J. Rajila w/o A.A.J. Ashokar and in favour of Rosammal Memorial Minority College of Education (For Women) represented by its Correspondent Mr.A.A.J. Ashokar. Mrs. J. Rajila owned the property by a Family Settlement Deed executed on 01.12.2010 by Mr. A.A.J.Ashokar. 3. Notarized English version of land documents is not submitted. 4. Certificate of Registration of Society/Trust and Bye-laws is not submitted. The application for B.Ed course has been made in the name of the individual (A.A.J. Ashokar, Correspondent). 5. Blue print of building plan is not submitted. Photocopy of building plan submitted is not legible. Total earmarked area and total plot area for the proposed course are not submitted. 6. Sy.Nos. are not mentioned in the affidavit. 7. Building Completion Certificate in the prescribed format approved by competent civil authority is not submitted. 8. Minority Certificate issued by the Principal Secretary not submitted. 9. As per VT report, *Language Learning Lab is not available. Total earmarked area and total plot area for the proposed course are not submitted. 6. Sy.Nos. are not mentioned in the affidavit. 7. Building Completion Certificate in the prescribed format approved by competent civil authority is not submitted. 8. Minority Certificate issued by the Principal Secretary not submitted. 9. As per VT report, *Language Learning Lab is not available. *The available equipment in psychology lab is inadequate and needs to be strengthened. *The furniture in multipurpose hall and assembly hall are not adequate. *Educational Technology lab needs to be strengthened. *Other labs/Physical Education/etc., needs to be strengthened. 10. The Management is also running D.T.Ed course (APS03279) and recognition has been granted on 15.07.1998. As per VT report, D.T.Ed is not being offered in the proposed building for B.Ed." 11. Learned Counsel for the appellant-institution submitted that the defects pointed out, have been complied with much before the inspection and therefore, the appellant is entitled to the grant of recognition under the provisions of the NCTE Regulations. It is pointed out that in the remarks column of the report, 10 deficiencies have been mentioned. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, whatever pointed out as deficiencies, the documents pertaining thereto, are already considered by the Inspection Committee and they find a reference in the parent portion of the report itself. In any event, we shall consider each one of the defects in seriatim. The defects as well as comments offered by the appellant, are tabulated hereunder: SL.No. REMARK OF NCTE APPELLANT'S COMMENTS 1 Demand Drafts dt. 20.10.2012 and 20.10.2012, need to be revalidated If the NCTE returns the Demand Draft, it can be get revalidated from the Bank.In order to avoid any delay, Appellant sent a fresh Demand Draft dt. 29.11.2013 for Rs.50,000/- to the Respondent. 2 Title to Land. Transferred land to the Institute by way of settlement deed. In the report itself, the Inspection Committee admitted that the land stands in the name of the Appellant Institute. Therefore, no exception can be taken. 3 Notarised English version of land documents not submitted The Appellant had submitted Notarised version of the land document along with the application. The Inspection Committee has not mentioned so in their report.However, in order to avoid any delay, the Appellant had sent a Notarised English Version of land document once again along with the letter dt. 29.11.2013. 3 Notarised English version of land documents not submitted The Appellant had submitted Notarised version of the land document along with the application. The Inspection Committee has not mentioned so in their report.However, in order to avoid any delay, the Appellant had sent a Notarised English Version of land document once again along with the letter dt. 29.11.2013. 4 Certificate of Registration of Society/Trust and Bye-laws not submitted If the institution is established by a Trust/Society, bye-law would be there. Since Appellant institution is established by individual, no Certificate of Registration and bye-laws are submitted.Institution need be established only by a Trust or Society. Even an individual has a right to establish a minority institution.(2008 W.L.R. 406 @ para 32) 5 Blue print of building plan not submitted. Photocopy submitted is not legible. Original Blue Print of building plan is given by the Department only once i.e. at the time of granting planning permission. The original was submitted to the NCTE along with the application on 26.9.2007.Hence photo copy submitted. Photocopy of the plan is very much legible. 6 Survey Number not mentioned in the affidavit. Survey number of the land is very much mentioned in the title deed registered in favour of the Appellant Institute. There is no requirement for mentioning the survey number in the Affidavit also.However, in order to avoid any delay, a fresh affidavit has been prepared mentioning the survey numbers and the same is sent to the NCTE along with the letter dt. 29.11.2013. 7 Building Completion Certificate approved by the competent civil authority not submitted. The Building Completion Certificate is issued by the District Panel Engineer as per their procedure.Since the NCTE wants the same in a specified format, the Appellant obtained the same from the District Panel Engineer and sent along with their letter dt. 29.11.2013. 8 Minority Certificate issued by the Principal Secretary not submitted. The Appellant is already running Teacher Training Institute in Thootukudi. The Government of Tamilnadu granted minority status vide proceedings dt. 6.1.2007. The very NCTE granted recognition to the said Institute.When NCTE took same stand in 2010, the NCTE Appellate Authority by order dt. 24.09.2010, held that the Appellant can obtain minority status certificate from the Government after granting recognition to the institution. 9(a) Language Learning Lab is not available Language Learning Lab is very much available. 6.1.2007. The very NCTE granted recognition to the said Institute.When NCTE took same stand in 2010, the NCTE Appellate Authority by order dt. 24.09.2010, held that the Appellant can obtain minority status certificate from the Government after granting recognition to the institution. 9(a) Language Learning Lab is not available Language Learning Lab is very much available. Photographs of the Lab, bills regarding purchase of books, furniture, equipments are enclosed along with the letter dt. 29.11.2013. (b) Equipments in Psychology lab is inadequate and needs to be strengthened Vague statement. The Psychology Lab is well equipped. Page 13 of the proforma of inspection would establish the same. (c) Furniture in multipurpose hall and assembly hall not adequate Adequate furniture has been provided in the multipurpose hall and assembly hall. Copies of the bills were enclosed along with Appellant's letter dt. 29.11.2013. (d) Educational Technology lab needs to be strengthened Page 14 of the Assessment of Proforma for inspection has endorsed about adequacy of the education lab. 10 D.T.Ed institution of the Appellant recognised on 15.07.1998 by NCTE is not offered in the proposed building for B.Ed. No where the Rules mandates that both D.T.Ed. Institute and B.Ed. Institute should be in the same premises.In any event, the premises are just adjacent to each other. 12. From the above, it is evident that the Inspection Committee admitted that the land stands in the name of the appellant institution and therefore, the same cannot be a ground for rejection. That apart, the Notarised English Version of the documents has been sent along with the letter dated 29.11.2013, and it is to be noted that such objection was not pointed out by the Committee. A reading of the entire report revealed that the English Version of the document was already available with the second respondent. Further, on the question that the Certificate of Registration of Society/Trust has not been submitted, it is to be noted that the appellant is an individual and the Division Bench of this Court in the case of G.SAHADEVAN NAIR, MANAGER & CORRESPONDENT, AIDED PRIMARY SCHOOL, KALLUPALAM, IDAICODE POST, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT V. THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND TWO OTHERS reported in 2008 WRIT L.R. 406, has held that an individual was entitled to pursue an application and therefore, this ground also is not sustainable. Regarding the planning permission, it is not disputed that the original plan was submitted on 26.9.2007; but, the survey number of the land owned by the institution, is said to have not been mentioned in the affidavit. However, we find that the survey number of the property has been referred to in page No.11 of the report itself, which is in tabular format. Therefore, on that ground, the appellant's application should not have been thrown out. Regarding the Building Completion Certificate, the District Panel Engineer has given it and that is in accordance with the procedure followed as per the directions of the District Collector. Nevertheless, another Completion Certificate has been submitted by the appellant in the specified format along with the letter dated 29.11.2013. 13. Regarding the minority status, even in the appellant's own case in respect of the Teacher Training Institute, which has been conducted in Tuticorin, the appellate authority under the NCTE Act, has ordered that the appellant can obtain minority status certificate after grant of recognition, by its order dated 24.9.2010. Therefore, this ground cannot be put against the appellant. That apart, as regards the Psychology Lab, furniture in multipurpose hall and assembly hall and educational technology lab, the Committee has pointed out that the facilities are to be strengthened. As far as the language learning lab is concerned, it is stated by the Committee that it is not available. But, it was denied by the appellant by sending the photograph of the lab, bills regarding purchase of books, furniture, etc., along with the letter dated 29.11.2013. Regarding the objection that D.T.Ed. institution of the appellant recognised on 15.7.1998, by NCTE, is not offered in the proposed building for B.Ed. It is stated by the appellant that nowhere Rule mandates that both the institutions should be run in the same premises and in any event, both the institutions are in adjacent premises. Thus, we find that except for the strengthening of lab facilities, the appellant appears to have complied with the statutory requirements as required by the NCTE for obtaining a recognition. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the second respondent may be directed to issue appropriate orders so as to enable the appellant to commence the B.Ed. Course. 14. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the second respondent may be directed to issue appropriate orders so as to enable the appellant to commence the B.Ed. Course. 14. Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2-NCTE in the writ appeal, submitted that Regulation 7(1-A) of the Amended Regulation is a mandatory requirement and admittedly, the appellant has not submitted the hard copy of the application within the period of 7 days after the submission of the on-line application, and therefore, the application submitted by the appellant, was rightly rejected by the NCTE. It is further submitted that unless and until the appellant complies the statutory requirements, the question of examining the other aspects would not arise and even if the appellant has made certain compliance, that would, in no manner, cure the defect, which has initially occurred in not submitting the hard copy of the application within the stipulated time limit. The submissions made by the learned Counsel, have been reiterated in the form of written submissions. The learned Counsel also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION AND OTHERS V. SHRI SHYAM SHIKSHA PRASHIKSHAN SANSTHAN AND OTHERS reported in 2011 (2) SCALE 59. 15. We have heard the learned Counsel on either side and considered their submissions and carefully perused the materials placed on record. 16. The grant of recognition for starting a B.Ed. Course should be as per the procedures stipulated in the Regulations viz. The National Council for Teach Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2007, which has been subsequently, amended in 2009. For the purpose of this case, Regulation 7(1) and Regulation 7(1-A) would be relevant, and they read as follows: "7. Processing of Applications:- (1) The applicant institutions shall ensure on-line submission of applications complete in all respect along with hard copy of the application and other documents specified below. However, in case of any inadvertent omissions or deficiencies in the documents submitted, the office of the Regional Committee shall point out the deficiencies within 45 days of the receipt of the applications, which the applicants shall remove within 60 days from the date of receipt of communication of deficiencies, if any. The on-line application with separate submission of the following documents only, shall be considered as complete applications. The on-line application with separate submission of the following documents only, shall be considered as complete applications. i. Application in triplicate on the prescribed format. ii. Processing Fees as provided under Rule 9 of the National Council for Teacher Education Rules, 1997 as amended from time to time. iii. Fixed Deposit Receipt for Rs. 5.00 lacs and 3.00 lacs of a Nationalised Bank towards Endowment and Reserve Funds, respectively. iv. Certified copy of the registered land documents issued by the competent authority. v. Approved building plan by the competent civil authority. vi. Notarized copy of Change of Land Use Certificate issued by the competent authority. vii. Affidavit in the prescribed form on Rs. 100/- stamp paper duly attested by Oath Commissioner or Notary Public, stating the precise location of the land (village, district, state etc), the total area in possession, the permission of the competent authority to use the land for educational purposes and mode of possession i.e. ownership or lease. (1-A) The application submitted on-line but not followed by dispatch, through registered post or by hand with the documents mentioned at (i) to (vii) above within 7 days shall be considered as incomplete and shall be summarily rejected with the reasons recorded in writing and returned to the applicant along with the processing fees within 30 days of the receipt of application." 17. In terms of Regulation 7(1), the applicant-institution should submit its application complete in all respects along with the hard copy and other documents, which are specified under Regulation 7(1-A). However, in case of inadvertent omissions or deficiencies in the documents submitted, the NCTE shall point out the deficiencies within 45 days and on receipt of such communication, the applicant is entitled to remove the deficiencies within 60 days from the receipt of the communication of deficiencies. In terms of Regulation 7(1-A), the application submitted under Regulation 7(1) by on-line mode, should be followed by dispatch through registered post or by hand with the documents mentioned in Clauses (i) to (vii) in Regulation 7(1), within seven days and only such of those application shall be considered as complete or else, they shall be summarily rejected with reasons recorded in writing and returned to the applicant along with the processing fee within 30 days of the receipt of the application. 18. 18. The ground, on which, rejection of the appellant's application was made, is that they have not complied with Regulation 7(1-A), since the on-line application was not followed by dispatch through registered post or by hand with the documents mentioned, within seven days from the date of submission of on-line application. It is not in dispute that the appellant/writ petitioner submitted the application by on-line mode on 1.9.2011. In terms of Regulation 7(1-A), the hard copy of the application along with the documents should be submitted within seven days from the said date. Nevertheless, the appellant had submitted hard copy of the application only on 28.10.2011. This appears to be the reason for rejection of the application. A reading of the Regulation 7(1) shows that an application, which was submitted on-line and complete in all respects along with hard copy with annexures, shall be regarded as complete application and in cases of inadvertent omissions or deficiencies of the documents, the NCTE has to point out the same to the applicant within 45 days from the date of receipt of application. On receipt of the communication pointing out the deficiencies, the applicant shall be entitled to rectify the defects within 60 days from the date of receipt of such communication. Under Regulation 7(1-A), if the application has not been followed by a hard copy along with annexures within seven days from the date of submission of application by on-line mode, then the NCTE shall pass an order summarily rejecting the application with reasons recorded in writing within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of on-line application along with the processing fee remitted by the applicant. We have noticed that the appellant herein did not submit the hard copy of the application within 7 days from the date of submission of on-line application. However, the NCTE did not pass orders rejecting such an application within a period of 30 days as stipulated under the same Regulation 7(1-A). The order of rejection came to be passed only on 13.1.2012, i.e., much after the time limit stipulated under the Regulation. Therefore, if the contention of the second respondent-NCTE that the requirements under Regulation 7(1-A) is mandatory, it equally applies to them also. The order of rejection came to be passed only on 13.1.2012, i.e., much after the time limit stipulated under the Regulation. Therefore, if the contention of the second respondent-NCTE that the requirements under Regulation 7(1-A) is mandatory, it equally applies to them also. If the appellant's application has been thrown out on the ground that it is beyond the period of seven days, then equally, the second respondent-NCTE is also guilty of not passing the order within the time limit prescribed under the Regulation. In case of inadvertent omissions or deficiencies, the NCTE has to point out the same to the applicant within 45 days from the date of receipt of the application. If that was done, then the appellant would have had 60 days time from the date of receipt of such communication to comply with the deficiencies. 19. From the dates noted above, it is evidently clear that the second respondent-NCTE has given a complete go-by to the time limit prescribed under the statute for their compliance. In such circumstances, it is to be seen as to whether the appellant has to be non-suited solely on the ground that the hard copy of their application was not submitted within seven days from the date of submission of on-line application. If the respondents have failed to follow the provisions of the statute and pass orders within the time limit, then the appellant cannot be put to peril. The Regulation not only provides safeguards to the manner, in which, the application has to be processed, but also takes care of the interest of the appellant by affording them reasonable opportunity and sufficient time to rectify the inadvertent omissions or deficiencies. Therefore, the Regulation 7(1-A) has to be harmoniously read along with Regulation 7(1) and if otherwise done, it would result in arbitrary exercise of power, which would not satisfy the test of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. That apart, this would not be in consonance with the stipulation under Regulation 7(1). Therefore, we hold that the appellant's application should not have been summarily thrown out on the ground that the hard copy of the application was not made within seven days from the date of submission of on-line application., in the light of the fact that no orders rejecting the application and giving reasons therefor, was passed within 30 days time limit as per Regulation 7(1-A). Furthermore, Regulation 7(1) also provides for a time limit of 45 days to intimate the inadvertent omissions or deficiencies and thereafter, the appellant would have had 60 days time limit to rectify the defects. Hence, for all the above reasons, we are inclined to interfere with the order under appeal and the reasons assigned for rejection. 20. As far as the deficiencies are concerned, in the preceding paragraphs, we have pointed out that the appellant had satisfactorily explained the defects pointed out in the final report. That apart, we have noticed that the documents and materials were very much available with the second respondent-NCTE even from the date of inspection also and they also find a reference in the inspection report itself. The only issue pointed out in the report, is that the language learning lab is not in existence; but, that has been properly explained by the appellant by stating that the lab is in place and necessary documents have also been furnished along with their letter dated 29.11.2013. Therefore, we are of the view that the appellant is entitled to the relief sought for. 21. Learned Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2-NCTE submitted that there is a time limit fixed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and beyond 31st December, 2013, the applications cannot be entertained for the purpose of considering and granting recognition for the academic year 2014-2015. So far as the case on hand is concerned, the appellant has submitted their application as early as 1.9.2011, and the application was rejected, but beyond the time limit prescribed under the Regulation, by passing an order on 13.1.2012. This was the subject matter of challenge by way of writ petition and it was dismissed on 4.6.2012. Immediately, the appellant filed an appeal, in which, interim direction was issued on 16.10.2012, directing the Officials of NCTE to conduct inspection. This direction was well within the time stipulated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as the cut-off date for final submission of application. But, the NCTE did not comply with the direction of the Division Bench and did not conduct inspection within the time limit of three weeks. After the contempt petition was filed by the appellant, the NCTE moved the review application along with the delay of 117 days to review the interim direction issued by the Division Bench. But, the NCTE did not comply with the direction of the Division Bench and did not conduct inspection within the time limit of three weeks. After the contempt petition was filed by the appellant, the NCTE moved the review application along with the delay of 117 days to review the interim direction issued by the Division Bench. This was rejected by the Division Bench by order dated 4.11.2013, and again, a direction was issued to the NCTE to conduct inspection, pursuant to which, inspection has been conducted and report has been submitted. We have seen in the preceding paragraphs, that the appellant has satisfactorily explained the remarks given by the Inspection Committee pursuant to the inspection conducted on the institution. In the light of the above facts, we make it clear that the appellant shall be entitled to grant of recognition only from the academic year 2014-2015. 22. In the result, the writ appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.20419/2011, is set aside and the second respondent-NCTE is directed to consider and pass orders on the application of the appellant/writ petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment, for the purpose of grant of recognition to the appellant for starting one year B.Ed. Course from the academic year 2014-2015. No costs. Consequently, connected MP is closed. 23. In the light of the order passed in the writ appeal, nothing survives in W.P. No. 16955/2013 and the same is closed. The contempt petition is also closed and the second respondent-NCTE shall comply with the directions of this Court within the period stipulated above. No costs.