ORDER : 1. The petitioner–Sri. Siddhartha Teacher Training Institute, Tumkur District has approached this Court by these writ petitions on 25/05/2015 aggrieved by the order Annexure J dated 05/05/2015 passed by the National Council for Teachers’ Education (‘NCTE’ for short) upholding the order dated 23/07/2012 passed by the Southern Regional Committee (SRC) of the Respondent NCTE by which the recognition of the petitioner Institution was withdrawn inter alia on the ground of deficiencies of infrastructure of the petitioner Institution to provide Diploma in Education (D.Ed.) Course to the students. 2. The relevant portion of the impugned order Annexure J dated 05/05/2015 is quoted below for ready reference: “ORDER Whereas the appeal of Sri Siddhartha D.Ed. College, Tiptur, Tumkur, Karnataka dated 09/02/2015 is against the Order No.APSO3459/D.Ed./KA/2012-13/44170 dated 23-07-2012 of the Southern Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting D.Ed. course on the grounds that “the Total builtup area earmarked for the D.Ed. programme is only 10507 sq. ft. which is grossly inadequate for the Teacher Education Programme as per NCTE Norms the management also corroborates the same by affixing signature of the management representative in the essential data. In reply to this, the management is requesting for further extension of two years’ time to construct additional building of 500 sq. mtrs. Which is not permissible as per NCTE Norms. As per 8 (13) of NCTE Regulations, 2009. “Whenever there are changes in the norms and standards for a course or training programme in Teacher Education, the institution shall comply with the requirements laid down in the revised Norms and Standards immediately but not later than one year from the date of effect of the revised Norms. However, the revised land area related Norms shall not be applicable to the existing institutions if the same is not possible. But the required built up area shall have to be increased by them to conform to the revised Norms. However, such institutions not having land area as per the revised Norms shall not be allowed to expand by way of additional courses or additional intake. The Institution has shifted to another Building without permission of SRC, which is in violation of NCTE regulations 2009 and the built up area of this building is less then requirement as per NCTE norms. The Institution has shifted to another Building without permission of SRC, which is in violation of NCTE regulations 2009 and the built up area of this building is less then requirement as per NCTE norms. The Land documents submitted is in individual name, which is not permissible as per NCTE Regulations 2009, further the institution is requesting SRC to permit one year time for change of land document is Society’s name, which is not permissible as per NCTE Regulations. AS per BCC submitted total built up area available is only 10507 sq. fts., which is grossly inadequate and less than the requirement of 16000 sq. ft., as per NCTE Norms. The Secretary of the institution is requesting 1 year time to submit land usage certificate, which is not permissible as per NCTE Norms. The secretary of the institution is requesting 1 year time to submit encumbrance certificate in favour of society/institution. Original FDRs of Rs.5 and 3 lakhs towards endowment and reserve fund from a Nationalized Bank in favour of Society/college/institution name if not given. The institution was granted recognition in the 27-9-1996 and institution requested for shifting premises after 15 years an again requesting extension time for submissions records, which is not permissible as per Regulations.” … …… … …… AND WHEREAS Appeal Committee further noted that the appellant institution had earlier filed an appeal dated 22-09-2012 against the impugned order and the same was decided by the Appeal Committee by confirming the withdrawal orders issued by S.R.C. (Appeal Order dated 11-01-2013 issued by NCTE refers to the case). The review petition filed before the Appeal Committee is only on the ground that there is no demand for D.El.Ed. course in Karnataka and for reduced strength, infrastructure as before would not be justified and required. Appeal Committee is of the view that infrastructure for a particular course is required as per NCTE norms and is assessed for the intake sanctioned. Committee therefore, concluded to reiterate its earlier order dated 11-01-2013 by confirming the impugned order dated 23-07-2012 and decision conveyed to appellant institution vide letter dated 27-01-2015. AND WHEREAS on perusal of the Memoranda of Appeal, affidavit, documents on record and oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Committee concluded to confirm the withdrawal order dated 23-07-2012 and decision conveyed by S.R.C. to the appellant institution vide letter dated 27-01-2015. AND WHEREAS on perusal of the Memoranda of Appeal, affidavit, documents on record and oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Committee concluded to confirm the withdrawal order dated 23-07-2012 and decision conveyed by S.R.C. to the appellant institution vide letter dated 27-01-2015. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against. Sd/- (Juglal Singh) Member Secretary.” 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner Institution urged before the Court that the petitioner–Institution had undertaken the necessary steps to remove the defects and deficiencies pointed out by the Respondent NCTE and the relevant material with regard to the same was also placed before the Respondent–NCTE but, without considering the same, the Respondent NCTE has rejected the appeal of the present petitioner–Institution by the impugned order Annexure J dated 05/05/2015. 4. He has sought to draw the attention of the Court towards the documents placed along with the subsequent interim Applications filed during the pendency of these writ petitions including a Rejoinder to the Statement of Objections filed by the Respondent NCTE in this Court justifying the passing of the aforesaid impugned order. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is satisfied that, whether the petitioner Institution fulfills the requirements of the infrastructure as required by the relevant Rules and Regulations, namely, of a particular space of built up area as required under the present case to the extent of 16,000 Sq.Ft. as per NCTE norms, whereas the petitioner had a built up area of only 10507 Sq.Ft. which was found to be inadequate or other similar defects and deficiencies, are all questions of facts to be determined by the competent bodies under the relevant Act. Such determination of questions of facts cannot be undertaken under writ jurisdiction. 6. From the facts and grounds stated in the impugned order Annexure J dated 05/05/2015, the same appears to be based on relevant facts and evidence produced by the petitioner Institution. If the petitioner Institution is of the opinion that the said decision is contrary to the evidence produced later on by them, it is for the petitioner to approach the same Authority with relevant facts and evidence in the matter again and satisfy the said Authority about the sufficiency of the infrastructure and the norms as set up by the Respondent NCTE. 7. 7. Therefore, with the aforesaid liberty to the petitioner Institution, the present writ petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs.