Judgment: Challenging the order dated 31/12/2008 (Annexure P/13) passed by the Western Regional Committee of the National Council for Teacher Education, in the matter of withdrawal of recognition granted to the petitioner institute by exercising the powers under Section 17 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as “NCTE Act”) and the order of appellate authority Annexure P/15 dated 18/08/2009, dismissing the appeal, this writ petition has been filed by the institute. 2. The College in question namely Maa Sharda B.Ed. College, Tikamgarh is established by the Maihar Mata Shiksha Evam Jan Kalyan Samitee, a society registered under the provision of M.P. Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam. The committee established a College for imparting education in B. Ed. Course and for the same a building was leased after obtaining the approval from the Director of M.P. State Council of Research and Training, Bhopal. Applications were filed before the Regional Director, National Council for Teacher Education, Western Regional Committee, Bhopal seeking recognition for the academic session 2005-06. Vide Annexure P/1 dated 20/07/2005 recognition was granted with an annual intake of 100 students in the course for the academic session 2005-06. Thereafter, on 28/02/2007, the order of recognition under Section 14(1) of the NCTE Act was granted vide Annexure P/2 and one of the condition for recognition in this order was to the effect that institution shall shift to its own premises within three years from the date of recognition. It is the case of the petitioner that when the original recognition was granted vide Annexure P/1 dated 20/07/2005 there was no such condition stipulated. The condition was stipulated for the first time on 28/02/2007 vide Annexure P/2 and therefore, petitioners were under the bona fide believes that they will got three years time for complying with the directions as contained in Annexure P/2. It is pointed out by filing documents to show that certain plots of land were taken on lease for construction of the buildings and in fact the construction process was in progress when all of a sudden the Collector of the District due to scarcity of water prohibited the construction work vide Annexure P/11 dated 22/09/2008. It is stated that the institution was making all endevour to comply with the directions but because of the circumstances beyond their control, they were unable to complete construction of the building. It is stated that the institution was making all endevour to comply with the directions but because of the circumstances beyond their control, they were unable to complete construction of the building. On the ground that institute does not have proper infrastructural facilities and based on certain directions given in Public Interest Litigation by this court, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and the recognition having been cancelled and appeal filed filed by the petitioner also rejected, this writ petition has been filed. It is stated that the original recognition granted in the year 2005-06 was continued upto the year 2008-09 and during this period instituted also got affiliated to the Dr. Harisingh Gour University, Sagar. 3. Shri Kishore Shrivastava, learned senior counsel for the petitioner argued that when the original recognition was granted vide Annexure P/1 in the year 2005, the regulations as were applicable in the year 2005 was made applicable at that point of time, only requirement was with regard to the institute having certain number of class rooms, Halls and Laboratory for conducting educational facilities. It is stated that this facilities was available in the institute but after the regulation was amended in the year 2007, the increased facilities as required was available but on the garb of the institute having no building of its own, the impugned action is taken. It is stated that even though in the year 2007 vide Annexure P/2 on 28/02/2007, three years time was granted for completing the construction of its own building but even before this period could be over the impugned action is taken. Accordingly, contending that the action is unsustainable and arbitrary, writ petition has been filed. Learned senior counsel took us through the statutory provisions, Rules and regulations to argue that the action is unsustainable, however when a question was put to him as on date the amended regulations are applicable and the institution is not functioning, therefore, they should comply with the requirements of NCTE Act and regulations framed thereunder. Shri Kishore Shrivastava, learned senior counsel submits that in view of the provisions of Section 14(3) of the NCTE Act, that the council may give recognition and the institute shall not admit the students for the said course till all the facilities as required are not existing, it is said that the institute will commence only after all the formalities are completed. He therefore, argued that in the facts and circumstances of the case recognition granted be restored. In the meanwhile the institute will construct its own building and after the same is done permission for admission of students and commencement of the Course may be granted. It is stated that if the building is constructed and ultimately recognition is not granted, it would cause adverse effect on the institution and irreparable loss to the society. 4. Refuting the said contention Smt. Shobha Menon, Senior Advocate and Shri K.K. Singh submitted that no illegality and error has been committed in the matter and placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Adarsh Shiksha Mahavidyalaya and others Vs. Subhash Rahangdale and others (2012) 2 SCC 425 and a subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2013) 2 Supreme Court Case 617, it was argued that in the absence of the statutory requirement as contemplated in the NCTE Act and regulation being complied with, no such relief as prayed for can be granted. 5. We have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record. 6. Certain facts which are relevant are to be taken note of. It may be seen that when the original provisional recognition was granted to the institute vide Annexure P/1 in July, 2005 by the Western Regional Committee as was functioning in the State of M.P. A public interest litigation was filed in this court being W.P. No. 6113/2008 and W.P. No. 8936/2008 and in both these cases orders were passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 31/07/2008 wherein the Act of the Western Regional Committee in granting recognition to various institute in the State of M.P., Maharashtra and Goa was criticized and it was found that the recognition have been granted in an illegal manner and therefore, council was directed to scrutinize all the cases where the recognition was granted by the Western Regional Committee. It is because of this order passed in the Public Interest Litigation that action was taken not only against the petitioner but against all the institute for reconsideration of the matter and that is why the impugned action was taken. It is because of this order passed in the Public Interest Litigation that action was taken not only against the petitioner but against all the institute for reconsideration of the matter and that is why the impugned action was taken. The Supreme Court has gone into various aspects of the matter pertaining to teachers education and it has emphasized that institute have fulfilled the statutory requirements and it has been held by the Supreme Court that until and unless the requirements as provided for under the NCTE Act and regulations framed thereunder are not fulfilled and the inspection done by the council to verify the same no permission should be granted to any institute in the matter of establishment of a Education Institution. If the records of the present case and return filed by the respondents are scrutinized it would be seen that after the orders were passed in the matter by this Court in the Public Interest Litigation and when the show-cause notice was issued based on the direction issued by this Court, which has finally been affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of Adarsh Shiksha Mahavidyalaya (supra), the inspection of the petitioner institute was undertaken on 18th February, 2009 i.e. before the appellate order was passed and in the inspection report Annexure R/2-1 with regard to the infrastructural facilities available and after the overall assessment, following observation are made by the inspection team. “Overall assessment of the institution. This college does not look like a college. When the inspection team visited, we were not given any original documents to verify from. When asked about the originals, we were told that the documents were stolen and a report was lodged regarding the theft in July, 2008. The College has not tried to procure any documents from various authorities till date. We could meet only the Principal and two staff members others were not present library has some books but they are not subscribing to any educational journals. Infrastructural and instructional facilities are also not up to the mark. The college does not have their own playground. They have taken permission from the Municipal Corporation to use their land as playground. We could meet only the Principal and two staff members others were not present library has some books but they are not subscribing to any educational journals. Infrastructural and instructional facilities are also not up to the mark. The college does not have their own playground. They have taken permission from the Municipal Corporation to use their land as playground. This college has brought a land on Sagar Road to construct the college building but they have not yet started the construction.” (emphasis supplied) That being the factual position with regard to the state of affairs, it is clear that no infrastructural facilities are available, therefore, we see no reason to interfere into the matter, particularly when the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Adarsh Shiksha Mahavidyalaya (supra) and Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya (supra) clearly contemplates that without complying with the requirement of the statutory rules and regulations no institute should be permitted to carry out educational activities. Admittedly, the institute is not functioning since 2010 and now if the institute wants recognition for admission of the students and for imparting education for the Course in question, they should now submit a proper application before the council and it would be for the council to conduct proper inspection and proceed to decide the question for recognition afresh in accordance with law. We do not agree with the interpretation of Shri Kishore Shrivastava, learned senior counsel to the effect that recognition be granted first and then the institute will fulfill the requirement before admitting the students. This procedure cannot be which is permitted. The Supreme Court in the case of Adarsh Shiksha Mahavidyalaya (supra) and Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya (supra) clearly laid down that recognition has to be granted first and then only a institute can functioning and before granting recognition all the requirements including the expenditure of infrastructural facilities should be fulfilled. The interpretation of Section 14(3) as canvassed by Shri Kishore Shrivastava, Senior counsel cannot be accepted in the backdrop of the law laid down by the Supreme Court. Under such circumstances for the present we see no ground to issue any mandamus, the institute may comply with the requirements of law and thereafter seek for recognition in accordance with law. 7. Under such circumstances for the present we see no ground to issue any mandamus, the institute may comply with the requirements of law and thereafter seek for recognition in accordance with law. 7. As far as the contention advanced by Shri Kishore Shrivastava, learned Senior counsel to the effect that the recognition has been withdrawn illegally and the facilities available with the institute are sufficient enough are concerned, we are of the considered view that in the backdrop of the inspection report and observations and finding recorded which is reproduced hereinabove, this submission cannot be accepted. The appellate authority has based its finding on the inspection report and the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the competent authority of the council, based on the existence of infrastructural facilities is a reasonable finding and no interference into the same is called for. 8. With the aforesaid, finding no further indulgence into the matter, petition is therefore, dismissed.