JUDGMENT : ALOK SHARMA, J. The petitioner institution Bala Prasad Kushwaha Mahavidyalay (hereinafter ‘the institution’) run by Di Mata Dayal Educational Society (hereinafter ‘the Society’) is aggrieved of the order dated 6-3-2017 passed by Appellate Authority whereby its appeal against the order dated 19-8-2016 passed by the NRC NCTE rejecting Society's application filed on 25-6-2015 for grant of recognition for D.El.Ed (additional intake) has been dismissed. 2. Counsel for the petitioner institution submitted that on 27-1-2016 the inspection team of the NRC which visited the institution could not conduct the inspection since the manager was not available. The institution had therefore requested the postponement of inspection for a week. However the NRC NCTE in its 250th meeting decided to issue show cause notice to the institution under Section 14/15(3)(b) of the NCTE Act, 1993. On receipt of the show cause notice dated 2-6-2016, reply was sent on 23-6-2016 through courier. Yet the NRC without considering the reply vide order dated 19-8-2016 peremptorily rejected the application for grant of recognition. The appellate authority vide order dated 6-3-2017 has rejected the institution's appeal without good cause. Hence this petition. 3. Heard counsel for the petitioner institution and perused the material available on record. 4. A perusal of the order of refusal passed by NRC dated 19-8-2016 shows that the petitioner institution did not file reply to the show cause notice dated 2-6-2016 nor explain why the mere absence of the Manager was cause enough for NRC's multi member inspection team not to be allowed inspection of the premises offered for the D.El.Ed course (additional intake). In such circumstances, without a positive report of the inspection team the NRC had no option but of rejecting the application filed by the petitioner institution for additional intake of D.El.Ed The Appellate Authority in the absence of the requisite inspection report could not but come to the same conclusion as the NRC and dismiss the appeal which it did by its affirming order dated 6-3-2017. Nothing illegal can be attributed to the impugned orders. 5. Further a perusal of the petition indicates that the petitioner Society sought recognition of additional intake in the D.El.Ed course under its application dated 25-6-2015, which obviously related to AY 2016-17. That academic year has since run out. This fact by itself renders this petition infructuous. I am not inclined to entertain the submission of Mr. 5. Further a perusal of the petition indicates that the petitioner Society sought recognition of additional intake in the D.El.Ed course under its application dated 25-6-2015, which obviously related to AY 2016-17. That academic year has since run out. This fact by itself renders this petition infructuous. I am not inclined to entertain the submission of Mr. M.S. Raghav appearing for the institution that a direction be issued for consideration of the petitioner institution's application in issue for Academic Year 2018-19 as in the meantime AY 2017-18 has also commenced about three months ago. This for the reason that the petitioner institution can apply afresh for enhancement of intake of students, law permitting qua the said Academic Year. Besides in view of the facts of the case where the impugned refusal order by NRC as affirmed by the Appellate Authority are founded on the inexplicable conduct of the institution in refusing to allow the inspection team which visited it on 27-1-2016 to make the requisite inspection on a lame duck ground, no equity or special circumstances at all are also made out. 6. This court in its supervisory jurisdiction cannot pass orders without legal foundation/justification on the mere asking on a vague submission of a lopsided view of rights and justice. The integrity of the processes of the statutory authorities has to be given due regard and unless a clear ground of perversity, patent illegality, malafide or palpable error of jurisdiction in any of its various aspects are/is made out and manifest injustice has been occasioned, no interference is warranted. None of the aforesaid grounds for interference obtain in the instant case. 7. The petition is dismissed.