* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 411/2012 & C.M. No.872/2012
Decided on: 8th February, 2012
IN THE MATTER OF
THE DIRECTOR, MAHARISHI CENTRE FOR EDUCATIONAL
EXCELLENCE ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vishal Bhatnagar, Adv.
versus
THE NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION AND ORS
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Adv. for R-1 & 2
Mr. Ravinder Aggarwal, Adv. for R-3.
CORAM
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner institute based in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh praying inter alia for quashing of the ex parte order dated 9.12.2011 passed by the Appellate Authority of respondent No.1/NCTE.
2. The crux of the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner is that while passing the impugned order dated 9.12.2011, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 22.1.2010 passed by the Western Regional Committee withdrawing the recognition for conducting B.Ed. course of the petitioner institute, the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of hearing by the Appellate Authority and as a result, it could W.P.(C) No.411/2012 Page 1 of 4 not place its stand before the Appellate Committee.
3. On 22.1.2012, when counsel for respondents No.1 & 2 had entered appearance in the matter and stated that he had not received a copy of the paper book, the same was directed to be furnished to him and he was also directed to obtain instructions from his clients before the next date.
4. Today, counsel for respondents No.1 & 2 states that as per his instructions, before the appeal was taken up for hearing by the Appellate Committee, two notices had been issued to the petitioner. The first notice was dated 23.9.2011 and the second one was dated 17.10.2011. He states that not only were the said notices dispatched through the postal authorities by speed post, but the same were also placed on the website of respondent No.1/NCTE for information. He hands over a copy of the letter dated 6.2.2012 whereby, the aforesaid information was communicated by respondent No.1/NCTE to the learned counsel, which is taken on record.
5. A perusal of the records reveal that when the first notice dated 23.9.2011 was issued to the petitioner, it had replied thereto by informing respondent No.2 that the institute could not be represented before the Appellate Committee on the date of hearing fixed, i.e., on 11.10.2011 due to late receipt of the aforesaid notice and therefore a request was made to respondent No.1/NCTE to fix a new date of hearing.
6. Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no reason whatsoever W.P.(C) No.411/2012 Page 2 of 4 for the petitioner to have avoided appearing before the Appellate Committee of respondent No.1 for the reason that the petitioner was keen to place before the Committee certain documents to establish that the building did exist on the land for which documents were submitted by the institute initially for conducting a B.Ed. Course. It is further stated that the petitioner also wanted to produce the evidence of the existence of infrastructure in the institute and dispel the impression created in the order dated 22.01.2010, passed by the Western Regional Committee, that it did not have adequate infrastructure available in the institute.
7. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is deemed appropriate to quash and set aside the ex parte order dated 9.12.2011 passed by respondent No.1/NCTE, with the following directions : i. Respondent No.1/NCTE shall issue a fresh notice of appearance to the petitioner at least two weeks prior to the actual date of hearing. ii. As learned counsel for respondent No.1/NCTE states that the next meeting of the Appellate Committee shall be held between the last week of February and the first week of March, 2012, it is directed that intimation of the date, time and venue of the hearing shall be communicated to the petitioner well in advance and preferably on or before 17.2.2012.
iii. Respondent No.1/NCTE shall also ensure that information regarding W.P.(C) No.411/2012 Page 3 of 4 the next date of hearing is placed on its website on or before 17.2.2012 and the petitioner shall be vigilant enough to verify the exact date of the notice from the website of respondent No.1/NCTE. iv. The petitioner shall appear before the Appellate Committee on the date and time to be intimated by respondent No.1/NCTE, along with the relevant documents, through its representative, who shall make submissions as may be deemed appropriate.
v. Respondent No.1/NCTE shall consider the said representation of the petitioner and the documents produced by it on the date fixed and thereafter pass a speaking order, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of conclusion of submissions, under written intimation to the petitioner.
8. In case the petitioner is still aggrieved by the order that may be passed, it shall be entitled to seek its remedies as per law.
The petition is disposed of, along with the pending application. Dasti to the parties.
HIMA KOHLI, J FEBRUARY 08, 2012 sk W.P.(C) No.411/2012 Page 4 of 4