- Court
- High Court of Delhi
- Decided
- 20 April 2011
- Bench
- Sanjiv Khanna
- Case no.
- LPA 743/2010
Judgment
SANJIV KHANNA, J Kapil/dk
Case details
Parties and counsel
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: 24th February, 2011 % Judgment Pronounced on: April 20, 2011 + 1. LPA No. 743/2010 NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION & ANR. ..... Appellants Through: Mr.Parag Tripathi, ASG with Mr.Amitesh Kumar & Mr.Ravi Kant, Advocates Versus G.D. MEMORIAL COLLEGE OF EDUCATION ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Sanjay Sherawat with Mr.Sundar Rao K.P. & Ms.Sangeeta Batra, Advocates 2. LPA No. 830/2010 THE MEMBER SECRETARY NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION & ORS...... Appellants Through: Mr.Mayank Manish Advocate for Mr.Amitesh Kumar, Advocate. Versus GURU NANK KHALSA COLLEGE ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Sanjay Sherawat, Advocate. 3. LPA No. 833/2010 THE MEMBER SECRETARY NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION & ORS...... Appellants Through: Mr.Mayank Manish Advocate for Mr.Amitesh Kumar, Advocate. Versus BALAJI COLLEGE OF EDUCATION ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Sanjay Sherawat, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA 1. Whether reporters of the local papers be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes DIPAK MISRA, CJ The controversy raised in these appeals fundamentally pertain to the interpretation of the Regulation 8(7) of National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition, Norms & Procedure) Regulations, 2007 (for brevity "2007 Regulations") framed under Section 32 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (for short "the NCTE Act"). They were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. In LPA No.833/2010 as the factual matrix is slightly different, the relief clause therein shall be adverted to separately. For the sake of clarity and convenience, we shall advert to the facts in LPA No.743/2010 where the assail is to the order dated 13th July, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP (C) No. 4094/2010. 2. The facts, which are required to be unfurled, are that the respondent, G.D. Memorial College of Education, submitted an application to the Northern Regional Committee of NCTE (NRC) on 9th June, 2008 seeking recognition for B.Ed. course. It was pleaded in the writ petition that the respondent-institution is managed and run by Shri Krishna Shiksha Samiti, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. After submitting the application, it came to the knowledge of the respondent that as per the 2007 Regulations the society or the institution was required to be the owner of the land. It was contended that Shri Baldev Krishna, the Chairman of the Society had constructed the building in his name and had executed a 99 years lease in respect of the said land in the name of the society. After coming to know about the amendment, Shri Baldev Krishna executed a deed of gift in favour of the society. The copy of the gift deed was filed before the NRC. Despite filing of the said document, when the application of the respondent-writ petitioner was not processed, he filed WP (C) No. 8749/2008 and the said writ petition was disposed of on 10th December, 2008 by recording the statement of the NRC that the application of the respondent for recognition shall be processed and decided within 90 days. After the said order was passed, NRC did not inspect the institution but communicated by letter dated 12th March, 2009 that the application did not deserve consideration as the State Government by recommendation, as required under Clause 7(3) of the 2007 Regulations, did not recommend for recognition and had provided reasons/grounds and statistics for not granting recognition; that the institution has not submitted permission letter from the competent authority to use the land for educational purpose, as required under Clause 8(8) of the 2007 Regulations; and that the land is not in the name of the institution as required under Clause 8(7) of the 2007 Regulations. 3. Being dissatisfied with the said decision, the resp
Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.