Judgment : 1. Writ Petition has been filed seeking to quash the impugned order passed by the second respondent in F.No. APSO5948/B.Ed/TN/2012-13/45663, dated 29.08.2012, confirmed in Appeal by the order of the first respondent in F.No.89-607/2012 Appeal/7th Meeting-2013/A67139, dated 14.05.2013 and consequently, to direct the respondents to restore the recognition granted to the petitioner institution. 2. According to the petitioner, the Educational Agency, viz., Christian Mission Charitable Trust, proposed to start one year B.Ed. course and applied to the second respondent for recognition. The second respondent granted recognition to the petitioner Institution by its order, dated 09.01.2007. The University also granted affiliation to the petitioner Institution for starting the College for the academic year 2008-09. One of the conditions for grant of recognition was that the Institution shall shift to its own premises/building within 3 years from the date of recognition. 3. The land in which the petitioner Institution is situated was owned by the Correspondent of the Institution, viz., in the individual name of S.Selvaraj, he in turn executed a 99 year registered lease to the Trust viz., the Educational Agency to start B.Ed. College. The lease was permitted as per the old rules. Later on, in 2009, National Council for Teacher Education amended its rules and permitted the Institution to be started in its own premises or lands and buildings leased out by Central or State Government. But, in this case, the Correspondent was the owner of the land and in turn, he executed the lease in favour of the petitioner. There was an inspection carried out on 08.06.2010. Based on the inspection report, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner Institution in the year 2012, pointing out certain deficiencies, one of the deficiency pointed out is that even after three years of grant of recognition, the petitioner has not shifted the Institution to new premises. For the show cause notice, dated 25.06.2012, the petitioner sent a reply on 14.07.2012, stating that the deficiencies have been complied with, however, on 29.08.2012, the second respondent withdrew the recognition granted to the petitioner Institution. Against the same, the petitioner has preferred statutory appeal under Section 18 of National Council for Teacher Education Act, before the first respondent on 21.09.2012. The first respondent, who is the Appellate Authority, has passed an order on 14.05.2013 upholding the order of the second respondent dated 29.08.2012. Against the same, the petitioner has preferred statutory appeal under Section 18 of National Council for Teacher Education Act, before the first respondent on 21.09.2012. The first respondent, who is the Appellate Authority, has passed an order on 14.05.2013 upholding the order of the second respondent dated 29.08.2012. As against the said order, the present Writ Petition has been filed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner challenges the impugned order mainly on the ground that the Appellate Authority had come to a wrong conclusion that the registered Settlement Deed was executed by the Correspondent after the date of withdrawal of the recognition, which is factually in correct, as the Settlement Deed was registered even as early as on 16.03.2012, whereas, the recognition was withdrawn only with effect from 29.08.2012, therefore, this shows that the Appellate Authority has not applied his mind as regards the factual position as it then prevailed by virtue of the Settlement Deed in favour of the Educational Agency. He would further submit that all other deficiencies pointed out by the second respondent have already been rectified and the same was taken note of by the second respondent. He would further add that the petitioner Institution is a minority Institution, but, this vital fact has not been taken into consideration by the second respondent before withdrawing the recognition and hence the Writ Petition. 5. A counter has been filed on behalf of the respondents. In the counter, the respondents would mainly point out that the petitioner did not rectify all the deficiencies pointed out by the second respondent and did not shift to its own premises within the stipulated period and the Settlement Deed was registered, much later, on 16.03.2012. In fact, even by communication, dated 12.07.2011, the petitioner had sought permission for shifting of the premises, but, they have not moved on to their own premises. In fact, he would mainly point out that three years statutory period for shifting the premises expired as early as on 08.01.2010. Taking into consideration the original recognition was granted in the year 2007, therefore, any Settlement Deed executed after that period will have no consequences, hence, seeks to dismiss the Writ Petition. 6. In fact, he would mainly point out that three years statutory period for shifting the premises expired as early as on 08.01.2010. Taking into consideration the original recognition was granted in the year 2007, therefore, any Settlement Deed executed after that period will have no consequences, hence, seeks to dismiss the Writ Petition. 6. Learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents would contend that, merely because after the expiry of the period the second respondent took necessary action, the delay cannot be a reason to say that the action was not taken appropriately, therefore, the impugned order is correct and it warrants no interference at the hands of this Court. 7. A reply was filed by the petitioner, in which, the petitioner would mainly contend that there is no question of shifting the premises at all, in fact, the original building itself has been constructed on the leasehold land. Now, instead of lease, the petitioner Institution got the Settlement Deed registered in their favour, but, the original building remains intact, therefore, this case is different from all other cases and this vital fact has not been taken into consideration. Even in the reply notice, dated 18.07.2012, the petitioner himself has enclosed the said Settlement Deed, dated 16.03.2012, which is in favour of the Educational Agency. Both respondents have not taken into consideration the Settlement Deed, dated 16.03.2012, which was very much available in records even along with the reply, dated 18.07.2012, whereas, in the impugned orders, the respondents have stated that the Settlement Deed is executed after the order of withdrawal, which is an error apparent on the face of the record. 8. Heard both sides. By consent, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 9. Originally, the petitioner Institution started functioning in a leasehold land, in which, the building was constructed. The recognition was given in the year 2007. The petitioner Institution was given three years time to shift to their own premises. According to the second respondent, the time granted expired in 2010. In 2011, by communication dated 12.07.2011, the petitioner had sought permission for shifting of the premises. The recognition was given in the year 2007. The petitioner Institution was given three years time to shift to their own premises. According to the second respondent, the time granted expired in 2010. In 2011, by communication dated 12.07.2011, the petitioner had sought permission for shifting of the premises. Thereafter, the second respondent has made an inspection and during inspection, certain irregularities were found, especially, the main deficiency pointed out is that the petitioner Institution has not shifted the Institution to their own premises, therefore, a show cause notice was issued, for which the petitioner has submitted his reply as early as on 18.07.2012. It is pertinent to point out here that along with the reply, the petitioner has enclosed the Settlement Deed, dated 16.03.2012, which was executed by the Correspondent of the petitioner Institution in favour of the petitioner Institution and the same was registered. As per the Settlement Deed, dated 16.03.2012, the original land owner viz., the Correspondent of the petitioner Institution has executed the Settlement Deed in favour of the Educational Agency transferring the property, therefore, the Educational Agency has become the owner of the property. The building was already there in existence, which is admittedly owned by the Educational Agency. By virtue of the Settlement Deed, the land is also owned by the petitioner Institution. Now the petitioner's contention is that there is no question of shifting to their own premises, as what was in existence originally under the lease deed has now been transferred to one of their own land and building and therefore, the second respondent ought not to have pressed for shifting to their own premises and cancelled the recognition. According to the petitioner Institution, both respondents have failed to take into consideration the vital fact that it is not as if the land and building belongs to another person, where shifting is required, but, it is their own building standing in its name and the land is also owned by the petitioner Institution by virtue of the Settlement Deed dated 16.03.2012, therefore, the case of the petitioner stands in a different footing. 10. When the second respondent withdrew the recognition already granted, the petitioner has filed a statutory appeal, in which, the Appellate Authority has passed an order specifically pointing out that the petitioner got the property under the Settlement Deed only after the withdrawal of recognition. 10. When the second respondent withdrew the recognition already granted, the petitioner has filed a statutory appeal, in which, the Appellate Authority has passed an order specifically pointing out that the petitioner got the property under the Settlement Deed only after the withdrawal of recognition. The withdrawal of recognition is on 29.08.2012, whereas, from the records, it is clear that even along with the reply, the copy of Settlement Deed, dated 16.03.2012, has been enclosed. Therefore, there is an error apparent on the face of the record, neither, the second respondent nor the first respondent, who is the Appellate Authority, has taken into consideration this vital fact of execution of Settlement Deed, dated 16.03.2012, prior to the withdrawal of recognition on 29.08.2012, whereby, the land which was originally in the occupation of the petitioner Institution on lease has now become the owner and the building admittedly stands in the name of petitioner Institution and therefore, there is no need for shifting. Hence, the finding of the Appellate Authority that after the withdrawal of recognition alone the Settlement Deed has come into force is patently wrong. As stated supra by the petitioner this is a different case where originally the petitioner Institution possessed the land on leasehold and building is owned by petitioner Institution, now, they become the owner of the land as well as building and it is not a case of starting an Institution. The Institution was started in 2007 and thereafter, it was running upto 2012 and in 2012, they became the owner of both land and building. 11. Further more, the petitioner has also produced necessary documents to show that he has complied with all formalities viz., Building Completion Certificate; Land Title Certificate; and Land Usage Certificate issued by Revenue Divisional Officer, therefore, there is no deficiency according to the petitioner. 12. According to the petitioner, the Appellate Authority has wrongly come to the conclusion that the land and building, in which the petitioner Institution is situated, are different from the land to which the recognition was granted by the second respondent as early as on 09.01.2007. According to the petitioner, the land and building are one and same to which the recognition was granted and the same is situated in the same Survey No.242/2. 13. According to the petitioner, the land and building are one and same to which the recognition was granted and the same is situated in the same Survey No.242/2. 13. In this connection, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents would rely on an unreported judgment in W.P.No.28196 of 2011, dated 23.06.2012, wherein, when the building was not put up within three years, this Court in paragraph No.17 of the judgment has held as follows:- “17. The contention of the learned counsel for the first respondent is, that in view of the statutory rules having force of law, the period for raising construction is only three years, whereas it is the admitted case of the petitioner that after expire of three years till date, it has failed to raise the construction, it is admitted case that planning permission has been sanctioned, therefore construction is likely to take a time.” In that case, the stand of petitioner therein that Regulation 7(d) is only directory and not mandatory, is controverted by placing reliance on an unreported judgment of Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.664 of 2011, holding that the regulation for admission are binding and the decision thereof cannot be interfered with. But the said decision is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand in view of the fact that first of all this is not a case where no building has been put up at all, building was already there in existence and the petitioner Institution has been running from the year 2007 itself and at that point of time, it is a leasehold land and building was owned by him, now, by virtue of Settlement Deed, the petitioner Institution became the owner of both land and building and therefore, there is no need to shift the premises to to another place. 14. 14. Nextly, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel, relied upon an unreported judgment of this Court in W.P.No.33095 of 2013, dated 03.04.2014, wherein, in one building three different Educational Institutions were run, this Court pointed out that there is suppression of material facts and in the affidavit it has not mentioned the details like the cut-off date for shifting of the premises, date on which prior permission sought to the NCTE for shifting place, timely submission of the Demand Draft to process the shifting permission, how all three Educational Units could be located in one single new place without any complaint for shortage of space etc. and therefore, this Court has not interfered with the order of withdrawal of recognition. The facts of that case will not be applicable to the facts of the present case. 15. A reliance was placed upon my unreported judgment in W.P.No.6868 of 2014, dated 02.06.2014, wherein, I have placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2011(2) Scale 59, National Council for Teacher Education and Others Vs. Shri Shyam Shiksha Prashikshan Sansthan, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that Regulations 5 (4) and (5) of the 2007 Regulations as also the amendment made in Regulation 5 (5) vide Notification dated 01.07.2008 are not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and as per the Supreme Court direction, in future, no Institution shall be granted recognition unless it fulfils the conditions laid down in the Act and the Regulations and the time schedule fixed for processing the application by the Regional Committees and communication of the decision on the issue of recognition is strictly adhered to. That case arose out of non-production of approval list for the staff. Even though, the petitioner Institution therein was granted time, within that period they were not able to get the approved staff list and therefore, this Court felt that non-issuance of show cause notice does not arise for consideration as the conditional order of shifting has not been complied with. Even though, the petitioner Institution therein was granted time, within that period they were not able to get the approved staff list and therefore, this Court felt that non-issuance of show cause notice does not arise for consideration as the conditional order of shifting has not been complied with. Then, following the Division Bench Judgment stated supra, I held that at that point of time when they have not got the approved staff list they cannot run the Institution and this Court further added that now that the petitioner College has got its own building and also got the approved staff list, therefore, the first respondent should take into consideration for the grant of recognition and affiliation for the academic year 2014-2015. It is always open for the petitioner therein to make necessary representation in this regard. The facts in that case is totally different to the facts of the present case. 16. Lastly, he would rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2011(2) Scale 59, National Council for Teacher Education and others vs. Shri Shyam Shiksha Prashikshan Sansthan and others etc., wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph No.29 has held as under:- “29. ...We further hold that the provisions contained in Section 14 and the Regulations framed for grant of recognition including the requirement of recommendation of the State Government/Union Territory Administration are mandatory and an institution is not entitled to recognition unless it fulfils the conditions specified in various clauses of the Regulations. The Council is directed to ensure that in future no institution is granted recognition unless it fulfils the conditions laid down in the Act and the Regulations and the time schedule fixed for processing the application by the Regional Committees and communication of the decision on the issue of recognition is strictly adhered to.” In the said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Regulation is correct and mandatory and Institution is not entitled to recognition, unless it fulfils the condition specified in various clauses of Regulation. Absolutely, there is no dispute over the said decision. 17. Absolutely, there is no dispute over the said decision. 17. In the case on hand, whether the question of shifting the premises will arise now, when the building is owned by the petitioner Institution and in which the College has been running from the year 2007 on leasehold land and thereafter, by virtue of Settlement Deed, dated 16.03.2012, the petitioner Institution itself has become the owner of the land, thereby, now the petitioner Institution has become the owner of both land and building in the same survey number in S.No.242/2 for which the recognition was originally granted, which in my considered opinion has to be decided only by the authority concerned. So far as the impugned order is concerned, it is patently wrong for the simple reason that the Appellate Authority has come to the conclusion that the Settlement Deed, dated 16.03.2012, has been executed after the withdrawal of recognition, whereas, as stated supra, even along with the explanation letter, dated 18.07.2012, the petitioner has enclosed the copy of the Settlement Deed, dated 16.03.2012. The Settlement Deed is dated 16.03.2012, whereas, recognition has been withdrawn only on 29.08.2012, therefore, there is a clear non-application of mind. Only on that sole ground, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 18. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 14.05.2013 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the first respondent/Appellate Authority, who in turn shall give further opportunity to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order in the light of the judgment and also taking into consideration that originally the petitioner Institution possessed the land on leasehold and the building is owned by him, now, the petitioner Institution has become the owner of the land as well as building of the same land in Survey No.242/2 by virtue of the Settlement Deed, dated 16.03.2012, executed by the Correspondent of the petitioner Institution in favour of the Educational Agency. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.