JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. 1. Notice. Mr. Virbahadur Verma, learned Central Government Counsel and Ms. Ranjana Pathania, learned counsel, vice Ms. Archana Dutt, learned counsel, accept notice on behalf of respondents No. 1, 2 and No.3, respectively. 2. By way of this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged order 03.10.2024 (Annexure P-8), passed by theAppellate Authority, in terms whereof, the appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, against withdrawal order dated 23.12.2012, has been rejected by assigning the following reasons:- “The Appeal Committee during the on-line hearing held on 19.09.2024 viz a viz the documents submitted by the Appellant alongwith Appeal report and submission made therein noted that the NRC had withdrawn the recognition of the appellant institution vide order dated 29.12.2012 against which the appellant institution has preferred an appeal dated 07.08.2024. The Appeal Committee observed that the Appeal suffers from enormous delay of 12 years which is unreasonable and without any proper justification. The appellant institution has also failed to show any sufficient cause for the enormous delay. Hence, as per the extant Rules & Regulation of the NCTE, the Appeal Committee decided not to condone delay without any reasonable cause. As such, it is a fit case for non-admission of the Appeal on ground of delay and laches. Noting and submission and verbal arguments advanced during the online hearing. the Appeal Committee of the Council decided that the present Appeal is not admitted, and withdrawal dated 29.12.2012 issued by NRC is confirmed.” 3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents and having perused the Writ Petition as well as documents appended therewith, this Court does not finds any infirmity in the appellate order, in terms whereof, the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed on the ground of “enormous delay.” 4. The withdrawal order, which was assailed by way of an appeal after 12 years, was passed on 23.12.2012. Record demonstrates that the petitioner earlier preferred a Writ Petition against the said order, which, as informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, was dismissed. The withdrawal order, which was assailed by way of an appeal after 12 years, was passed on 23.12.2012. Record demonstrates that the petitioner earlier preferred a Writ Petition against the said order, which, as informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, was dismissed. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred Letters Patent Appeal against the order passed in the Writ Petition i.e. LPA No. 225 of 2014, which was decided on 22.12.2016, in terms of Annexure P-4, in the following terms:- “Accordingly, the LPA is disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to the appellant to file fresh application before respondents No. 1 and 2 within four weeks from today and respondents No. 1 and 2 to examine the same and pass appropriate orders, as per the Rules, occupying the field within four weeks thereafter. Pending applications, if any also stand disposed of. Dasti copy.” 5. However, the petitioner did not file any application within four weeks as from 22.12.2016, in terms of the liberty granted by the Hon’ble Division Bench. The petitioner, in fact, approached the Court by way of a miscellaneous application in the decided Letters Patent Appeal and prayed for grant of extension to file the representation, which application was allowed vide Annexure P-5, dated 03.08.2017, by granting further four weeks’ time to the petitioner to file representation on03.08.2017, as per Annexure P-4. 6. Again, no representation was filed by the petitioner and the petitioner ultimately filed the appeal (Annexure P-7), in the year 2024. 7. As per Section 18 of the NCTE Act, any person aggrieved by an order under Section 14 or 15 or Section 17 of the Act, may prefer an Appeal to the Council within such period as may be prescribed. This section further prescribes that no Appeal shall be admitted, if it is preferred after the expiry of the period prescribed therein, however, an Appeal may be admitted after the expiry of the period prescribed, if the appellant satisfies the Council that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the Appeal within the prescribed period. Under Section 18 of the NCTE Rules, read with Rule 10 of the NCTE Rules, 1997, an Appeal against an order made under Sections 14, 15 or 17 may be filed, within 60 days of the issue of the order. Under Section 18 of the NCTE Rules, read with Rule 10 of the NCTE Rules, 1997, an Appeal against an order made under Sections 14, 15 or 17 may be filed, within 60 days of the issue of the order. Provided that an Appeal may be admitted after the expiry of said period of 60 days if the appellant satisfies the Council that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the Appeal within the period of limitation of 60 days. 8. As already observed hereinabove, the impugned order was passed on 23.12.2012. No Appeal was filed either within the statutory period or within some reasonable period thereafter, assailing the said order. The Appeal was filed almost after 12 years. Not only this, no representation was preferred by the petitioner within the time period as was allowed on the request of the petitioner, by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 225 of 2014. 9. Here, one more thing which is relevant is that though the petitioner has neither appended the copy of the earlier Writ Petition preferred by it, nor the judgment passed therein, but learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that what was assailed by way of Writ Petition, was the withdrawal order. If that is so, then the very factum of the Writ Petition not having been allowed, amounts to confirmation of that order, as this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, refused to interfere therewith. 10. Not only this, even the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the Letters Patent Appeal did not interfere with the findings returned in the Writ Petition and all that was observed was that the petitioner was allowed to withdraw the Appeal with liberty to file a representation. 11. In these circumstances, the inaction on the part of the petitioner to have had availed that opportunity of filing a representation otherwise also seals the fate of the petitioner, because Hon’ble Division in its wisdom had not permitted the petitioner to further file any appeal, but had only allowed it to make a representation. 12. 11. In these circumstances, the inaction on the part of the petitioner to have had availed that opportunity of filing a representation otherwise also seals the fate of the petitioner, because Hon’ble Division in its wisdom had not permitted the petitioner to further file any appeal, but had only allowed it to make a representation. 12. Therefore, filing of the Appeal after 12 years but natural was a fait accompli, in the light of the fact that when this Court had refused interference with the withdrawal order earlier in the earlier proceedings filed by the petitioner, otherwise also, the Appellate Authority could not have interfered with the said findings in appeal. 13. Besides this, the reasoning that has been given by the Appellate Authority while dismissing the Appeal calls for no interference, for the reason that as it is an admitted fact that the withdrawal order was passed on 29.12.2012 and the Appeal was preferred on 17.08.2024, this enormous delay, which evidently is unreasonable and without any proper justification, entailed the dismissal of the Appeal, not having been filed within the period of limitation. 14. Accordingly, as this Court does not finds any merit in the Writ Petition, the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.