JUDGMENT : A. M. Khanwilkar, CJ. : ” This writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, takes exception to the order dated 30.01.2011 passed by the National Council for Teacher Education withdrawing recognition/permission granted to the petitioner-institution regarding B.Ed. Course from the end of academic session. This drastic order was passed on the singular ground that no building exists on the land specified by the institution at the time of application. Instead, the B.Ed. Course was being imparted in a building constructed on Khasra Nos.146 and 147/1/1 of Village Barkhedi Kalan, Neelbad Road and not on Khasra Nos.27, 63, 64/1/3. That has resulted in contravention of Clause 7(d) of Appendix 7 and Clause (iv) of Appendix 2 B of NCTE Regulations, 2002. This decision was assailed by the petitioner-management by way of an appeal. The Appellate Authority, however, re-confirmed the said order on 6.3.2013. Even this decision is the subject matter of challenge in the present petition. 2. For examining the correctness of the opinion recorded by the two Authorities, it may be worthwhile to refer to the relevant facts. The petitioner-College applied for grant of recognition to start B.Ed. Course in a rented building. That application was filed on 31.12.2001. The respondent No.2 caused to conduct inspection of the said building and infrastructure provided by the petitioner, on 12.6.2002. Thereafter, the petitioner acquired leased premises on 27.9.2002 and acquired part of the leased premises on ownership basis on 13.12.2002. The petitioner thereafter diverted the plot near Sharda Vidya mandir for educational use on 21.01.2003. The petitioner then requested the respondent No.2 to inspect the building in which B.Ed. Course was to be permitted. The respondent No.2 caused to make an inspection on 23.01.2003. The petitioner once again requested the respondent No.2 to undertake inspection near Sharda Vidya Mandir. The second inspection was thus conducted on 06.02.2003. That was followed by third inspection by the respondent No.2 on 13.06.2003 and the fourth on 13.09.2003. Thereafter, conditional recognition was granted to the petitioner to start the B.Ed. Course on 07.11.2003. Later on, unconditional recognition was granted by the respondent No.2 for the B.Ed. Course imparted by the petitioner on 09.07.2004. 3. After the High Court in a PIL directed the respondent No.2 to conduct inspection of all the B.Ed. Thereafter, conditional recognition was granted to the petitioner to start the B.Ed. Course on 07.11.2003. Later on, unconditional recognition was granted by the respondent No.2 for the B.Ed. Course imparted by the petitioner on 09.07.2004. 3. After the High Court in a PIL directed the respondent No.2 to conduct inspection of all the B.Ed. Colleges in the State of Madhya Pradesh vide order dated 31-7-2008, fifth inspection of the petitioner College was made on 13-1-2009. The respondent No.2 thereafter withdrew the recognition of the petitioner-College on 6-4-2009. The petitioner preferred an appeal against that decision which was allowed and the recognition was restored vide order of the Appellate Authority dated 18.08.2009. Accordingly, the recognition was restored by the respondent No.2 on 07.10.2009. In the sixth inspection report dated 03.08.2010, however, it was noticed that the B.Ed. College run by the petitioner-management was on Khasra Nos.146 & 147/1/1. The respondent No.2 was of the opinion that from inception, the management had represented in all the documents that the B.Ed. College will be established on Khasra Nos.27, 63 & 64/1/3 in the same Village Barkhedi Kalan. In that view of the matter, the respondent No.2 withdrew the recognition of the petitioner College. 4. That decision was first challenged by the petitioner before the Delhi High Court by way of Writ Petition No.6797/2011. By way of interim order passed in the said proceedings before the Delhi High Court, a joint inspection was directed. The joint Committee of AICTE, PCI and NCTE in its report dated 21.10.2011 has found as follows: ' 1. On the khasra Nos. 146, 147/1/1 in village Barkhedi in one building two colleges namely Naveen Swami Vivekanand B.Ed. College and Swami Vivekanand College of Pharmacy (Diploma in Pharmacy) are being run. 2. It is further observed that the same land documents of khasra Nos.146, 147/1/1 and the approved plan of the same building were submitted to the NCTE and PCI for seeking grant of recognition. 3. It was further observed that in the building plan there is no separate demarcation of the built-up area for two colleges. The building plan was originally approved by the competent authority for the vocational training centre. The team demanded the documentary proof for change of purpose of the building but the Management did not provide the same. 4. The Committee also observed that some rooms and common amenities are shared by both colleges. 5. The building plan was originally approved by the competent authority for the vocational training centre. The team demanded the documentary proof for change of purpose of the building but the Management did not provide the same. 4. The Committee also observed that some rooms and common amenities are shared by both colleges. 5. The Committee then also visited the constructed premises on the khasra Nos.27,63,64/1/2 on which the engineering college building is in existence. It was further observed that the nomenclature of the institution is Swami Vivekanand College of Science and Technology and there were three buildings constructed on these khasras ' œ one building in the front side was shown as Engineering College and the second building in the back side was shown as a Degree Pharmacy College which is not in use and the third building was closed and locked. The Management did not co-operate with the team in opening these closed and locked buildings. 6. It was further observed that the teaching staff of Engineering College and of the Degree Pharmacy College was not present, therefore, the joint team could not interact with them. 7. The team further observed that there were several advertisements in the premises of the Engineering College regarding Professional Courses in Engineering Faculty. The team demanded the documents regarding these professional courses but the Management did not provide any documents to the Team.' Œ (Emphasis supplied) 5. The High Court thereafter relegated the parties before the respondent No.1 for reconsideration of the entire matter afresh. The respondent No.1, however, rejected the appeal on 06.03.2013 and re-confirmed the decision of the Respondent No.2 dated 30.01.2011. In the present petition, both these decisions are challenged. 6. Reverting to the order dated 30.01.2011, which is impugned in this petition passed by the respondent No.2, only reason recorded for withdrawal of recognition granted to the petitioner-College, is that, no building exists on the land specified by the institution at the time of application. Thereby the institution contravened Clause 7(d) of Appendix 7 and Clause (iv) of Appendix 2 B of NCTE Regulations 2002. 7. The Appellate Authority re-confirmed that decision and rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner. The petitioner had contended that when the petitioner had applied for permission to start B.Ed. Course, it was in a rented premises. Later on, the petitioner purchased part of the leased premises and became owner thereof. 7. The Appellate Authority re-confirmed that decision and rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner. The petitioner had contended that when the petitioner had applied for permission to start B.Ed. Course, it was in a rented premises. Later on, the petitioner purchased part of the leased premises and became owner thereof. The petitioner has further asserted that Khasra Nos.27, 63, 64/1/3 was nowhere mentioned in the original application as that was purchased by the petitioner much later in the year 2005. Whereas, unconditional recognition was already granted to the petitioner on 09.07.2004. Further, the petitioner had purchased Khasra Nos.146 & 147/1/1 and constructed campus, to house two colleges of the same management to impart B.Ed. and Pharmacy Courses. The said Khasra Nos.146 & 147/1/1 was purchased on 13.12.2002. In substance, the case of the petitioner, is that, it is not as if no building existed to run the B.Ed. Course. Rather, the petitioner not only owned and possessed land bearing Khasra Nos. 146 & 147/1/1 but also constructed building thereon to house the B.Ed. College. Besides, this land was in the same village where the other land owned and possessed by the petitioner was located. Significantly, even the Joint Committee in its report dated 21.10.2011 has found that the land documents of Khasra Nos.146 & 147/1/1 were submitted with the approved plan to the NCTE and PCI for grant of recognition. More importantly, the petitioner was running B.Ed. College on that land since the grant of recognition to the knowledge of the Authorities. Thus, it is not as if the petitioner did not own any land. Both the lands bearing Khasra Nos.146 & 147/1/1 as also the survey Nos.27, 63 and 64/1/3 are owned and possessed by the same petitioner-management. In that view of the matter, it would be hyper technical approach to invoke Clause 7(d) of Appendix 7 and Clause (iv) of Appendix 2 B of NCTE Regulations, 2002. 8. From the facts as emerged from the record, it is noticed that both the lands bearing Khasra Nos. 146 and 147/1/1 as also Khasra Nos.27, 63 and 64/1/3 respectively are owned and possessed by the petitioner. The ownership vests in the same management. It is not in dispute that the recognition to start B.Ed. Course was granted to the same management for village Barkhedi Kalan. Further, the B.Ed. 146 and 147/1/1 as also Khasra Nos.27, 63 and 64/1/3 respectively are owned and possessed by the petitioner. The ownership vests in the same management. It is not in dispute that the recognition to start B.Ed. Course was granted to the same management for village Barkhedi Kalan. Further, the B.Ed. Course was already started from the building constructed on Khasra Nos.146 and 147/1/1 of Berkhedi Kalan. Both the lands are situated in the same village at a distance of around ½ kilometer only. In that sense, stricto sensu, it would not be a case for withdrawal of recognition by invoking Clause 7(d) of Appendix 7 and Clause (iv) of Appendix 2 B of NCTE Regulations, 2002. That may apply to a case where no building whatsoever exists on the land specified in the application for grant of recognition by the management. It may be invoked also when the institution does not have its own land and building as is mentioned in the application for grant of recognition. That is not the case in hand. In the present case, the management itself is the owner of the land and has B.Ed. College building constructed on that land. Further, the course was imparted in the same building since 2004 till the withdrawal of recognition on 30.01.2011. This aspect has been completely glossed over by the Appellate Authority. 9. In our opinion, instead of examining the matter any further, it would be appropriate to relegate the parties before the Appellate Authority for reconsideration of the matter in the light of the indisputable facts referred to above. We are persuaded to do so as we find that the application for grant of recognition was made in the year 2001 with reference to another premises taken by the petitioner-College on rental basis. However, as noted in the joint inspection report submitted before the Delhi High Court dated 21.10.2011, the petitioner had submitted documents of Khasra Nos.146, 147/1/1 and the approved plan of the building thereon to NCTE and PCI for grant of recognition to start B.Ed. College. At best, it would be a case requiring the petitioner-College to submit a formal application for shifting of premises referred to in the application. Significantly, the respondents having permitted to conduct the B.Ed. College. At best, it would be a case requiring the petitioner-College to submit a formal application for shifting of premises referred to in the application. Significantly, the respondents having permitted to conduct the B.Ed. Course from the building situated on Khasra No.146 and 147/1/1 owned and possessed by the petitioner management since the year 2004, the Authorities ought to have examined these aspects, which would have vital bearing on the final decision to be taken by them. We find that these aspects have been overlooked by both the Authorities resulting in manifest error, if not a perverse decision. 10. Counsel for the respondents has invited our attention to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of B.M. Educational Society v. NCTE and another, W.P. No.21371/2013 decided on 03.02.2014. The exposition in the said decision will have no application to the fact situation of the present case. In that case, the management did not own and possess land of specified measurement but wanted the Authority to reckon another plot owned by the management across the road for the purpose of computing the total holding. That contention has been negatived. Counsel for the respondent then relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shri Morvi Sarvajanik Kelavni Mandal Sanchalit Mskm B.Ed. College v. NCTE (2012) 2 SCC 16 . In that case, the Apex Court has referred to the mandatory requirements to be fulfilled before grant of recognition. Inter alia, that the institution must have its own land and building. As aforesaid, in the present case, the land and building is owned and possessed by the petitioner-management. At best, it would be a case for permission to shift the premises referred to in the original application which was taken on rental basis to one owned and possessed by the petitioner at the time of grant of unconditional recognition. Moreover, the unconditional recognition having been granted and was in force for more than seven years would certainly be a matter to be taken into account as this drastic decision of withdrawal of recognition was to directly affect the students pursuing B.Ed. Course in the petitioner-College which was otherwise duly recognized at the relevant time. 11. Counsel for the respondents has relied on the unreported decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rashtrasant T.M.S. & S.B.V.M.C.A. VID. & Ors. Course in the petitioner-College which was otherwise duly recognized at the relevant time. 11. Counsel for the respondents has relied on the unreported decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rashtrasant T.M.S. & S.B.V.M.C.A. VID. & Ors. v. Gangadar Nilkant Shende & Ors. I.A. Nos.56-57/2014 in SLP(Civil) No(s) 4247-4248/2009 dated 7.3.2014 to contend that the petitioners be called upon to make fresh application for grant of recognition in the building owned and possessed by the petitioner. We are not impressed by this submission. For, grant of fresh permission and continuation of recognition already granted, is perceptibly different. The petitioner is pursuing the remedy for continuation of unconditional recognition which was already granted in the year 2004 and has been withdrawn on untenable grounds. 12. Suffice it to note that as we are inclined to relegate the parties before the Appellate Authority for fresh consideration of the entire matter, it will be open to that Authority to examine all aspects of the matter and including about the effect of repeal of NICTE Regulations, 2002 and whether the issue regarding withdrawal of recognition qua the petitioner management should be considered and decided on the basis of extant Regulations. All questions will have to be considered on its own merit in accordance with law. We are not expressing any opinion either way on the merits of the controversy or the scope of the inquiry before the Appellate Authority for deciding the validity of the order dated 30.01.2011 withdrawing the recognition granted to the petitioner-College for B.Ed. Course. 13. The Appellate Authority shall decide the remanded proceedings expeditiously preferably within three months from today so that if the recognition is restored, the petitioner-College can restart the admission process at least from the next academic session i.e. 2014-2015 well in advance. Petition is disposed of on the above terms. Order accordingly.