JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder the order dated 27.06.2017 passed by Member Secretary, Rehabilitation Council of India has been assailed by which the petitioner-institution has been debarred from admitting students in D.Ed. Spl.Ed (ASD) course in the academic session 2017-18 or until the matter is resolved. 2. The case of the petitioner as per the pleading made in the writ petition is that the petitioner who has doing the charity work for differently abled persons by opening Teachers Training Centre for special education and to achieve the aforesaid purpose the institution has been established in the District of Hazaribagh, Jharkhand, the said institute is first of its kind in the State of Jharkhand for the welfare of differently abled persons. 3. The petitioner-institution has made an application before the respondent No.2, statutory body created under the provision of Rehabilitation Council of India Act, 1992. 4. The petitioner has made an application to that effect initially for getting NOC for D.Ed. Spl.Ed (Mental Retardation) and the requirement/approval to run the institution has been granted by the Council, respondent No.2. The petitioner –institution has also started admitting students in D.Ed. Spl.Ed (Autism Spectrum Disorders) but complaint has been made by one Shiv Shankar Prasad Mehta, Hazaribagh with regard to non-submission of State NOC for the aforesaid course, in consequence thereof, Council has constituted two member inquiry committee who have visited the institution and verified the records and has found that the State of Jharkhand has not issued NOC for offering D.Ed. Spl.Ed (ASD) course and therefore, a prohibitory order has been passed in admitting the students for the same course for the academic session 2017-18 or until the matter is revolved, the aforesaid order has been assailed before this Court inter alia on the ground that before taking the aforesaid penal action, the requirement as stipulated under Section 17 of the Rehabilitation Council of India Act, 1992 has not been followed, therefore, the order impugned is not sustainable in the eye of law. Further ground has been agitated that if the process as stipulated under Section 17 of the Act, 1992 would have been followed, the petitioner would had been in a position to bring to the notice of the competent authority and to satisfy with respect to the fact that the application has been made before the competent authority of the State Government for getting NOC for the aforesaid course but having not been provided the aforesaid opportunity, the petitioner’s interest has seriously been prejudiced. Mr. Vikas Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the State NOC is not required to be furnished. 5. Mr. Rajiv Sinha, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India has vehemently opposed the grounds and submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner by putting reliance upon the stand taken by the respondent No.2 in the counter affidavit wherein it has been stated that it is incorrect to say that NOC is not required for the course pertaining to D.Ed. Spl.Ed (ASD) as is itself evident from Annexure-3 that the petitioner has furnished the NOC (Mental Retardation) of the State Government at the time of getting approval to run the course i.e., D.Ed. Spl.Ed (ASD) and the NOC issued by the State Government has been enclosed which itself suggests that if the contention of the petitioner is said to be correct that there is no requirement of getting any NOC from the State Government then the question is that why the NOC issued by the State Government i.e., to the course of D.Ed. Spl.Ed (Mental Retardation) has been brought to the notice of the authority while seeking permission to run the institution also for the D.Ed. Spl.Ed (ASD). Mr. Vikas Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner in course of argument however conceded to that effect that the NOC is required to be submitted for getting approval from the Council to run a particular course. However, he has emphasized upon his argument that the procedure laid down under Section 17 of the Act, 1992 has not been allowed. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of their rival submissions, since the dispute about the submission of the NOC to be issued by the State Government has been accepted by the petitioner to be a mandatory condition for getting the approval, therefore, this Court is not dealing with the said ground. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of their rival submissions, since the dispute about the submission of the NOC to be issued by the State Government has been accepted by the petitioner to be a mandatory condition for getting the approval, therefore, this Court is not dealing with the said ground. 7. The question which has been raised by the petitioner about nonobservance of the procedure laid down under Section 17 of the Act, 1992 is the argument of the petitioner in assailing the impugned order dated 27.06.2017. 8. Before entering into the legality and propriety of the impugned order since the petitioner is harping upon non-observance of the procedure laid down under Section 17 of the Act, 1992, it would be relevant for this Court to refer the aforesaid provision for ready reference, which reads hereunder as: “17. Withdrawal of recognition.—(1) When upon report by the Inspector or the Visitor it appears to the Council- (a) that the courses of study and examination to be undergone in or the proficiency required from candidates at any examination held by any University or institution, or (b) that the staff, equipment, accommodation, training and other facilities for instruction and training provided in such University or institution, do not conform to the standard prescribed by the Council, the Council shall make a representation to that effect to the Central Government. (2) After considering such representation, the Central Government may send it to the University or institution with an intimation of the period within which the University or institution may submit its explanation to that Government. (2) After considering such representation, the Central Government may send it to the University or institution with an intimation of the period within which the University or institution may submit its explanation to that Government. (3) On the receipt of the explanation or where no explanation is submitted within the period fixed then, on the expiry of that period, the Central Government after making such further inquiry, if any, as it may think fit, may, by notification, direct that an entry shall be made in the Schedule against the said recognised rehabilitation qualification declaring that it shall be the recognised rehabilitation qualification only when granted before a specified date or that the said recognised rehabilitation qualification if granted to students of a specified University or institution shall be recognised rehabilitation qualification only when granted before a specified date, or as the case may be, that the said recognised rehabilitation qualification shall be recognised rehabilitation qualification in relation to a specified University or institution only when granted after a specified date.” It is evident from the aforesaid provision that the provision has been made for withdrawal of recognition and before doing that an opportunity of hearing is to be provided to the concerned institution. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner is that the principles of natural justice as has been provided under the mandate i.e., under Section 17 of the Act, 1992, has not been followed. 9. The question herein would be as to whether the principles of natural justice can be said to be straight jacket formula i.e., if the fact is not in dispute whether on the ground of non-observance of principles of natural justice, decision taken by the authority can be interfered with by the High Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by issuing writ of certiorari. 10. 10. It is not in dispute that the principles of natural justice is the cardinal principle to be followed but being not straight jacket formula, meaning thereby, the principles of natural justice is to be followed if the decision taken by the authority is going to be prejudiced and the prejudice would only come if the factual aspect basis upon which the decision has been taken is in dispute, meaning thereby, that if the person against whom any penal action has been taken and he is disputing the factual aspect basis upon which the penal action has been taken and if the principles of natural justice would not be followed certainly it will be said to cause serious prejudice to the concerned and in that circumstances, the principles of natural justice will have to be considered by the court of law. Other side of the principles of natural justice would be that if the factual aspect is not in dispute so whether in that circumstances any interference can be made by the writ court by issuing writ of certiorari, the answer of this Court would be in negative, it is for the reason that the principles of natural justice is to be followed accepting for a decision to come on adjudication in case the fact is in dispute and if the fact would be in dispute then only the question of inquiry would come and if the fact is not in dispute, there is no question of any inquiry since the fact is in admission, therefore, in case of admission of fact, there is no chance of change in the decision and if in that situation, the decision taken by the authority would be interfered with by the court of law, then there will be no chance of change in the decision already taken by the authority and if in that circumstances, principles of natural justice would be followed it will be nothing but “empty formality” and “futile exercise”. The aforesaid aspect of the matter has been dealt with by the Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohammad Ramzan vs. Union of India and Managing Director ECIL Hyderabad vs. B. Karunakar, reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727 wherein the issue of prejudice was the important factor to be considered after the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Md. Ramzan that was the case of non-furnishing the copy of the inquiry copy along with show cause and in the case of Md. Ramzan it has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court that if the inquiry report has not been served along with the show cause, the automatic result would be quashing of the penal action taken by the disciplinary authority but the said ratio has been over-ruled by the other Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Managing Director ECIL Hyderabad (supra) wherein the issue of prejudice has been taken into consideration that even if the copy of the inquiry report has not been supplied to the delinquent then what prejudice has been cause to the said delinquent employee that is to be seen by the court of law before entering into the decision taken by the disciplinary authority. Reference may be made to the judgment rendered in the case of Escorts Farms Ltd. v. Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital, U.P. & others, reported in (2004) 4 SCC 281 wherein Hon'ble the Apex Court has held at paragraph-64 which is being quoted herein below: “64. Right of hearing to a necessary party is a valuable right. Denial of such right is serious breach of statutory procedure prescribed and violation of rules of natural justice. In these appeals preferred by the holder of lands and some other transferees, we have found that the terms of government grant did not permit transfers of land without permission of the State as grantor. Remand of cases of a group of transferees who were not heard, would, therefore, be of no legal consequence, more so, when on this legal question all affected parties have got full opportunity of hearing before the High Court and in this appeal before this Court. Rules of natural justice are to be followed for doing substantial justice and not for completing a mere ritual of hearing without possibility of any change in the decision of the case on merits. In view of the legal position explained by us above, we therefore, refrain from remanding these cases in exercise of our discretionary powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.” In the case of Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati and others, reported in (2015) 8 SCC 519 wherein their Lordships have held at paragraph39 which is being quoted herein below: “39. We are not concerned with these aspects in the present case as the issue relates to giving of notice before taking action. While emphasizing that the principles of natural justice cannot be applied in straitjacket formula, the aforesaid instances are given. We have highlighted the jurisprudential basis of adhering to the principles of natural justice which are grounded on the doctrine of procedural fairness, accuracy of outcome leading to general social goals, etc. Nevertheless, there may be situations wherein for some reason-perhaps because the evidence against the individual is thought to be utterly compelling-it is felt that a fair hearing “would make no difference”-meaning that a hearing would not change the ultimate conclusion reached by the decision-maker.” 11. This Court has examined the reason assigned in the impugned order viz-a-vis the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner and has found that when the case of the petitioner about requirement of State NOC for the court in question is in admission and even if the procedure laid down under Section 17 of the Act, 1992 has not been followed and in that circumstances if the decision taken by the authority as impugned herein, would be quashed and remitted before the authority, there is no chance of change in the situation since as laid down which is the admitted fact of the petitioner, State NOC is not in possession of the petitioner-institution as has been referred on a ground in the impugned order and on the aforesaid ground the admission of the students in particular course has been restrained or until the matter is resolved. In view of the aforesaid admitted fact even if the matter will be remitted before the authority for taking decision, there is no likelihood of change in the outcome hence the same will lead to empty formality and futile exercise and as such relying upon the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as referred above, the considered view of this Court is that on the ground of nonobservance of the procedure laid down under Section 17 of the Act, 1992 since there is no chance of change in the final decision, hence, decline to interfere with the impugned order. This Court has also considered the words as stipulated in the impugned order to the effect, “until the matter is resolved”, by inserting the said words in the impugned order the authority has left the chapter open for its consideration. Therefore, propriety demands that the petitioner be given liberty to approach before the competent authority for obtaining the “NOC” which is under consideration as has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner and if it will be furnished, the petitioner will be at liberty to approach before the authority for issuance of required permission for running of the course. The authority under the Act, 1992 is directed to consider in that eventuality by taking decision in accordance with law without any unnecessary delay. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.