Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Sri Rajeswari College Of Education vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 17 October, 2024

APHC010452442024

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                AT AMARAVATI              [3330]
                          (Special Original Jurisdiction)

     THURSDAY ,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER
          TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                              PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

    WRIT PETITION No: 23233 OF 2024 AND 23224 OF 2024

                        W.P. No.23233 of 2024
BETWEEN:
Sri Rajeswari College of Education                   ...Petitioner

                                AND

The State off Andhra Pradesh and others         ...Respondent(s)

                        W.P. No.23224 of 2024
BETWEEN:
K C Narayana College Of Education                    ...Petitioner

                                AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others          ...Respondent(s)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

   1. SRI VIJAY MATHUKUMILLI

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

  1. GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION
The Court made the following:
                                      2




COMMON ORDER:

The present Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of

Constitution of India and the relief sought for in both the Writ

Petitions is same and against the same respondents and the relief

sought in W.P. No.23233 of 2024 is as follows:

...pleased to issue an appropriate writ more in the nature of Wit of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not considering the representation of the Petitioner institution dated 30.09.2024 and not restoring the recognition of the Petitioner institution which is withdrawn vide order F.SRO/NCTE/APSO2651/ B.Ed/AP/2019/13070-3076, dated 09.12.2019, on the ground that petitioner did not offered its explanation for the first and final show cause notices issued by the 2nd respondent as being arbitrary, illegal, unwarranted and violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to consider the representation of the Petitioner institution and issue such other writ or order or direction as deemed fit and proper...

2. The 2nd respondent i.e. the National Council for Teacher

Education (Southern Regional Committee) has withdrawn the

recognition of the petitioner-institution vide order F.SRO/NCTE/

APSO2651/B.Ed/AP/2019/ 13070-3076, dated 09.12.2019. Before

withdrawing the recognition, the 2nd respondent has issued show

cause notice dated 04.02.2019 raising certain deficiencies and

invited/called for explanation. The petitioner-institution has not

acted upon the said show-cause notice. Thereafter, the 2nd

respondent has issued final show-cause notice dated 10.10.2019

to the petitioner-institution. Even for the 2 nd show cause notice,

the petitioner-institution has not responded. Therefore, the 2nd

respondent has derecognized the approval which was given to the

petitioner-institution vide orders dated 23.02.2005.

3. Be that as it may, the petitioner-institution submitted a

representation dated 30.09.2024, seeking restoration of

recognition granted earlier to the petitioner-institution. The said

representation was neither considered, nor rejected by the

2nd respondent. The inaction of the second respondent in

addressing the representation is challenged in the writ petition,

which seeks a direction for the respondents to examine and

dispose of the representation. It is noted that in a similar situation,

this Court, via order dated 04.11.2023 in W.P. No. 2897 of 2023,

directed the second respondent to review the representation and

communicate the decision to the concerned party. Therefore, the

learned counsel for the petitioner requests this Court to issue a

similar directive in the present writ petition. Additionally, the

counsel submits that the petitioner was unable to respond to the

preliminary and final show cause notices due to the COVID-19

pandemic.

4. Heard, Sri Srivijay Mathukumalli, learned counsel for the

Petitioner, Sri Vennam Hemanth Kumar, learned counsel for the

2nd respondent.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would reiterate

the contentions stated above and prayed to allow the Writ Petition

and to direct the 2nd respondent to examine and pass appropriate

orders on the representation dated 30.09.2024.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the 2ndrespondent would

submit that the derecognition order was passed on 09.12.2019 and

as on the date of passing of the de-recognition, the Covid-

19 pandemic had not yet begun and the lockdown has been

lifted in the entire country and returned to normalcy in the year

2021 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has extended the period of

limitation from 15th March, 2020 to 14th March, 2021 with a grace

period of 90 days. The counsel further stated that the petitioner did

not approach the 2nd respondent before the pandemic or during

the period of normalcy that followed. The present writ petition

seeks to reconsider the case of the petitioner institution and

withdraw the de-recognition order dated December 9, 2019. It is

contended that the petitioner has not approached this Court with

clean hands, and therefore, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

7. The petitioner contends that directing the 2nd respondent to

thoroughly analyze the representation and issue necessary orders

does not cause any prejudice to the 2nd respondent. Therefore, he

urges this Court to direct the 2nd respondent to consider the

representation dated 30.09.2024.

8. The law in this regard is that: In the judgment of Hon'ble

Apex Court in The Government of India vs P. Venkatesh1 held

that:

This "dispose of the representation" mantra is increasingly permeating the judicial process in the High Courts and the Tribunals. Such orders may make for a quick or easy disposal of cases in overburdened adjudicatory institutions. But, they do not service to the cause of justice. The litigant is back again before the Court, as this case shows, having incurred attendant costs and suffered delays of the legal

(2019) 15 SCC 613

process. This would have been obviated by calling for a counter in the first instance, thereby resulting in finality to the dispute.

Disposal of proceedings by seemingly innocuous orders directing consideration of representation though result in quick or easy disposal of cases in overburdened adjudicatory institutions but such orders do more disservice than service to the cause of justice.

9. In State of Maharashtra v. Digambar2, while dealing with

exercise of power of the High Court under Article 226 of the

Constitution, the Court observed that:

"Power of the High Court to be exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution, if is discretionary, its exercise must be judicious and reasonable, admits of no controversy. It is for that reason, a person's entitlement for relief from a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, be it against the State or anybody else, even if is founded on the allegation of infringement of his legal right, has to necessarily depend upon unblameworthy conduct of the person seeking relief, and the court refuses to grant the discretionary relief to such person in exercise of such power, when he approaches with unclean hands or blameworthy conduct."

10. In State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal3, the Court observed that:

(1995) 4 SCC 683

(1986) 4 SCC 566 = AIR 1987 SC 251

".........it is well settled that power of the High Court to issue an appropriate writ under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and the High Court in the exercise of its discretion does not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent and the lethargic."

11. It has been further stated therein that:

"........ If there is inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in filing a petition and such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the High Court may decline to intervene and grant relief in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction."

12. Dealing with the question of delay, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in State of Jammu & Kashmir v. R.K. Zalpuri and Kashmir 4,

has observed as under:

Having stated thus, it is useful to refer to a passage from City and Industrial Development Corporation vs. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala and Others5, wherein this Court while dwelling upon jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, has expressed thus:

"The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 is duty bound to consider whether:

(a) adjudication of writ petition involves any complex and disputed questions of facts and whether they can be satisfactorily resolved;

2015(15) SCC 602

[2009 (1) SCC 168]

(b) the petition reveals all material facts;

(d) person invoking the jurisdiction is guilty of unexplained delay and laches;

(e) ex facie barred by any laws of limitation;

(f) grant of relief is against public policy or barred by any valid law; and host of other factors."

13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in C. Jacob vs. Director of

Geology and Mining and another6 it was held as under:

"The courts/tribunals proceed on the assumption, that every citizen deserves a reply to his representation. Secondly they assume that a mere direction to consider and dispose of the representation does not involve any `decision' on rights and obligations of parties. Little do they realize the consequences of such a direction to .`consider'. If the representation is considered and accepted, the ex-employee gets a relief, which he would not have got on account of the long delay, all by reason of the direction to `consider'. If the representation is considered and rejected, the ex-employee files an application/writ petition, not with reference to the original cause of action of 1982, but by treating the rejection of the representation given in 2000, as the cause of action. A prayer is made for quashing the rejection of representation

(2008) 10 SCC 115

and for grant of the relief claimed in the representation. The Tribunals/High Courts routinely entertain such applications/petitions ignoring the huge delay preceding the representation, and proceed to examine the claim on merits and grant relief. In this manner, the bar of limitation or the laches gets obliterated or ignored."

14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others vs.

M.K. Sarkar7 observes as under:-

"The order of the Tribunal allowing the first application of the respondent without examining the merits, and directing the appellants to consider his representation has given rise to unnecessary litigation and avoidable complications. When a belated representation in regard to a "stale" or "dead"

issue/dispute is considered and decided, in compliance with a direction by the court/tribunal to do so, the date of such decision cannot be considered as furnishing a fresh cause of action for reviving the "dead" issue or time-barred dispute. The issue of limitation or delay and laches should be considered with reference to the original cause of action and not with reference to the date on which an order is passed in compliance with a court's direction. Neither a court's direction to consider a representation issued without examining the merits, nor a decision given in compliance with such direction, will extend the limitation, or erase the delay and laches.

(2010) 2 SCC 59

15. Moreover, a Court to tribunal, before directing

"consideration" of a claim or representation should examine

whether the claim or representation is with reference to a "live"

issue or whether it is with reference to a "dead" or "stale" issue. If it

is with reference to a "dead" or "stale" issue or dispute, the

court/tribunal should put an end to the matter and should not direct

consideration or reconsideration. If the court to tribunal deciding to

direct "consideration" without itself examining the merits, it should

make it clear that such consideration will be without prejudice to

any contention relating to limitation or delay and laches. Even if the

court does not expressly say so, that would be the legal position

and effect."

16. In Surjeet Singh Sahni v. State of U.P.8, it is observed as

under:

As observed by this Court in catena of decisions, mere representation does not extend the period of limitation and the aggrieved person has to approach the Court expeditiously and within reasonable time. If it is found that the writ petitioner is guilty of delay and latches, the High Court should dismiss it at the threshold and ought not to dispose of the writ petition by relegating the writ petitioner to file a representation and/or directing the authority to decide

(2022) 15 SCC 536

the representation, once it is found that the original writ petitioner is guilty of delay and latches."Such order shall not give an opportunity to the petitioner to thereafter contend that rejection of the representation subsequently has given a fresh cause of action".

17. Upon analyzing the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court

referred to above, this Court finds that the petitioner is guilty of

delay and laches, as rightly argued by the learned counsel for the

2nd respondent. When the petitioner-institution was de-recognized

on 09.12.2019, there was no COVID-19 pandemic, and the country

returned to normalcy by July 2021. Since then, the petitioner has

not made any representation for the past three years. The delay

and laches on the part of the petitioner do not create a fresh cause

of action for the petitioner-institution. Furthermore, the respondents

have no obligation to consider the representation unless

specifically provided for by the NCTE Act and its regulations.

18. A direction to the respondents can be issued under Article