ORDER: TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO, J. The present writ petition is filed to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the orders of the 5 th Respondent Appellate authority vide 202489220/E323584/2023/Appeal/4th Meeting No APPLSRC 202013842 dated 01.04.2024 confirming the withdrawal orders passed by the 4 th Respondent Southern Regional Committee vide No F/SRO/NCTE/APS09536/ B ED/AP/2020 /120014 dated 21.10.2020 without giving any finding/reason for withdrawal and neither pointing out any deficiencies contrary to Section 17 of NCTE Act 1993 as being arbitrary illegal unwarranted and violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India and violative of section 17 the National Council for Teacher Education Act and Rules famed thereunder and consequently to set aside the same. 2. The 5 th respondent Appeal Committee has concluded that the SRC was justified in withdrawing the recognition and decided that at the instant appeal deserves to be rejected and therefore the impugned withdrawal order dated 21.10.2020 issued by the SRC is confirmed. 3. Brief facts of the case:- The 4 th respondent i.e., NCTE (SRC) has withdrawn the recognition granted to the petitioner’s institution vide order dated 21.10.2020 on the ground that the petitioner institution has failed to submit written instruction along with the required documents. 4. Assailing or challenging the order dated 21.10.2020 of the 4 th respondent i.e., NCTE (SRC), the petitioner-institution filed W.P. No. 1901 of 2023. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 17.11.2023 directing the petitioner-institution to file an appeal under Section 18 of National Council For the Teacher Education Act 1993 and Regulation made therein (for short herein after called as Act) along with hard copies of the relevant material in order to put an end. 5. Accordingly, as outlined by this Court in the order in the above numbered writ petition, the petitioner-institution preferred an appeal before the 5 th respondent-NCTE Appellate Committee under Section 18 of National Council for the Teacher Education Act 1993. The appeal committee has addressed the appeal in the following vide order dated 01.04.2024:- “ In the instant matter again placed in the 4th meeting 2024 whereby the Appellant Institution informed the Appeal Committee during the online hearing that the Appellant Institution has submitted the faculty list before the Appellate Committee. The appeal committee has addressed the appeal in the following vide order dated 01.04.2024:- “ In the instant matter again placed in the 4th meeting 2024 whereby the Appellant Institution informed the Appeal Committee during the online hearing that the Appellant Institution has submitted the faculty list before the Appellate Committee. Further, the institution has sent a letter dated 21-02-2024 in which the institution has stated the following: [“… 2 the proceedings regarding the selection of all the faculty members by the selection committee duly constituted and approved by the competent authority of the affiliating University body has not issued any proceedings for all the B.Ed., colleges including our institution. But only circular has issued on 25-01-2024 till now the University is not mentioned schedule for staff ratification for 2023-24.”] 6. In view of above, Appeal Committee concluded that the SRC was justified in withdrawing the recognition and decided that at the instant appeal deserves to be rejected and therefore the impugned withdrawal order dated 21.10.2020 issued by the SRC is confirmed. 7. Assailing the order dated 01.04.2024 of the appellate committee (NCTE) this writ petition is presented on the following grounds: (i) not mentioned any reasons for withdrawing the recognition, by the (NCTE) SRC (ii) respondents admitted in their remainders that the petitioner- institution has submitted all the documents. 8. Hence prayed to set aside the order 01.04.2024 of the 5 th respondent Appellate Committee of NCTE. 9. After carefully examining the order of NCTE (SRC), i.e., the 4 th respondent authority, it was found that recognition was withdrawn due to the failure to submit written instructions along with the required documents. 10. Counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner-institution has filed all its documents regardless the documents filed by the petitioner-institution has withdrawn the recognition and he would draw the attention of this Court to the material papers for the ready reference of the Court. 11. Assailing the order dated 21.10.2020 of the 4 th respondent (NCTE) SRC, the petitioner-institution has submitted a writ petition 1901 of 2023 before this Court and the same was disposed vide order dated 17.11.2023 directing the petitioner-institution to file an appeal under section 18 NCTE Act. 11. Assailing the order dated 21.10.2020 of the 4 th respondent (NCTE) SRC, the petitioner-institution has submitted a writ petition 1901 of 2023 before this Court and the same was disposed vide order dated 17.11.2023 directing the petitioner-institution to file an appeal under section 18 NCTE Act. Ergo, the institution cannot be contended that the primary authority has not given any reasons while withdrawing the recognition, as the order of the (NCTE) SRC was merged in the order of this court, and as outlined in the writ petition the petitioner- institution has presented an appeal before appeal committee and the same was rejected hence the present writ petition. 12. On careful perusal of the impugned order of the 5 th respondent appellate committee has given several opportunities to the petitioner- institution to submit all relevant documents in 4th meeting conducted on 23.02.2024. The petitioner-institution has submitted a written representation on 21.02.2024 asserting that the University has issued a circular ratifying the staff on 25.01.2024 till now the University is not mentioned schedule for staff ratification for 2023-24. 13. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 14. The counsel for the petitioner would argue that the petitioner- institution has provided all the necessary documents, but without mentioning the hard copies, the impugned order was delivered. 15. The 6 th respondent Adikavi Nannayya University has filed its counter at the substance of the counter on reading of para Nos. 7 to 9 that the petitioner’s institution has applied for staff ratification and failed to submit renewed society documents hence, the ratification process was kept in abeyance and the university has received a letter from Mrs. P. Swetha the Secretary of Aadi Lakshmi College of Education (ADLK), Pithapuram and the college has come for ‘staff ratification’ without any intimation to her and to the society members in place of her some other person is acting as secretary without her permission and against the by-laws of the society. One Ch. Jayalakshmi has submitted an affidavit claiming that she is the secretary of the College and sought ratification of the faculty. The college has however failed to submit the renewed society registration certification duly issued by the society Registrar and the college has failed to attend for ratification of faculty by the University so far with relevant documents and the college is running without qualified staff. 16. The college has however failed to submit the renewed society registration certification duly issued by the society Registrar and the college has failed to attend for ratification of faculty by the University so far with relevant documents and the college is running without qualified staff. 16. The 5 th respondent Appellate Committee of NCTE has filed its counter and its asserted that that the appellate committee has adjourned the appeal hearing for three times i.e., on 05.12.2023; 11.01.2024 and 25.01.2024 and this respondent has acted in a fair and just manner, providing the petitioner-institution with multiple opportunities to comply with the requirements, thus, the decision making process followed is in full accordance with the prescribed rules and regulations. And the institution was duly informed regarding the documents that were deficient. And the order impugned dated 01.04.2024 issued by the appellate committee is comprehensive, well reasoned, and provides a clear explanation of the matter in question. The Court reasoning: 17. As seen from the documents filed by the petitioner along with the writ petition the petitioner has posted all the hard copies of the documents pertaining to the academic year 2017-18 and 2018-19 the hard copy contains handwritten note for the year 2019-2020. As per the postal receipt filed by the petitioner-institution, the documents were posted through registered post on 20.10.2020, the recognition was withdrawn on 21.10.2020, it means that the documents were posted to the NCTE (SRC), from the place of the petitioner-institution a day before withdrawing the recognition. The documents that were sent subsequent to the withdrawing the recognition. 18. The appellate committee has directed the petitioner-institution to submit the relevant record pertaining to the year 2023-2024 and the petitioner-institution has addressed a written representation on 21.02.2024 asserting that the University has issued a circular ratifying the staff on 25.01.2024 till now the University is not mentioned schedule for staff ratification for 2023-24. 18. The appellate committee has directed the petitioner-institution to submit the relevant record pertaining to the year 2023-2024 and the petitioner-institution has addressed a written representation on 21.02.2024 asserting that the University has issued a circular ratifying the staff on 25.01.2024 till now the University is not mentioned schedule for staff ratification for 2023-24. From the said assertion it manifests that the petitioner-institution has not submitted or provided the relevant documents and on perusal of the counter filed by the University that they have not ratified the staff of the petitioner- institution, due to disputes intrinsically in between the member of the institution, admittedly the relevant documents were not submitted as directed either by the primary authority or by the appellate committee (NCTE) by the petitioner-institution who are arrayed as 4 th and 5 th respondents respectively in the writ petition. 19. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner-institution, that no reasons assigned while withdrawing the recognition is not acceptable as the petitioner-institution has not filed the relevant documents as directed by the (NCTE) SRC due to internal disputes within the members of college and the counter filed by the university specifies the same and the counter further elucidates that the ratification process was kept in abeyance. Due to the dispute over the secretary position, the University has not ratified the affiliation. The same cannot be attributed to the respondents. 20. The issue pertains to the failure to file necessary documents as directed by the authorities. The writ petitioner can't allege that the impugned order is not a reasoned order and violates the principles of natural justice without filing the relevant documents in the way as directed by the (NCTE). 21. Notwithstanding the reasons assigned, the principles of natural justice cannot be made applicable in straitjacket formula but compliance of the doctrine is solely dependent upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The petitioner-institution has not approached this court with clean hands. A person approaching a court of equity, with the blameworthy conduct for obtaining discretionary relief disentitles for grant of such relief. 22. As such the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed. The petitioner-institution has not approached this court with clean hands. A person approaching a court of equity, with the blameworthy conduct for obtaining discretionary relief disentitles for grant of such relief. 22. As such the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed. The petitioner-institution has approached this Court with unclean hands, hence this Court imposes costs of Rs.5,000/- (in words Five Thousands only) that is payable to the Andhra Pradesh High Court Employees Association within a period of two weeks from the date of order failing which the Registrar (Judicial) is directed to take appropriate action for realisation of the cost imposed by this Court. 23. Assailing the withdrawing of the recognition by (NCTE) SRC a writ petition was presented and the same disposed and as outlined in the writ petition, petitioner institution has submitted an appeal under Section 18 of the Act. The institution is incorrect because there is a discrepancy to the post of secretary for the society (or institution). As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.