Delhi High Court

Kalpana Chawla College Of ... vs National Council For Teacher ... on 28 February, 2011

Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw

              *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                         Date of decision: 28th February, 2011


+                                       W.P.(C) No. 9670/2009
KALPANA CHAWLA COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
FOR WOMEN & ORS.                           ......Petitioners
                 Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharawat, Advocate.
                                                     Versus
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER
EDUCATION & ANR.                          .....Respondents
                 Through: Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Advocate.
                                                       AND
                                        W.P.(C) No. 9702/2009
SHANTI NIKETAN COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
& ORS.                                      ......Petitioners
                 Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharawat, Advocate.
                                                     Versus
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER
EDUCATION & ANR.                          .....Respondents
                 Through: Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Advocate.

                                                       AND




W.P.(C) No. 9670/2009, W.P.(C) No. 9702/2009, W.P.(C) No. 9703/2009, W.P.(C) No. 9705/2009, W.P.(C) No. 9741/2009,
W.P.(C) No. 9765/2009, W.P.(C) No. 9766/2009, W.P.(C) No. 812/2010, W.P.(C) No. 2017/2010, W.P.(C) No. 2019/2010,
W.P.(C) No. 4220/2010, W.P.(C) No. 4221/2010, W.P.(C) No. 4225/2010, W.P.(C) No. 4226/2010 & W.P.(C) No. 6409/2010

                                                                                                           Page 1 of 32
                                         W.P.(C) No. 9703/2009
SARASWATI COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
& ORS.                                     ......Petitioners
                Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharawat, Advocate.
                                                     Versus
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER
EDUCATION & ANR.                          .....Respondents
                 Through: Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Advocate.
                                                       AND
                                        W.P.(C) No. 9705/2009
GANGA COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
& ORS.                                     ......Petitioners
                Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharawat, Advocate.
                                                     Versus
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER
EDUCATION & ANR.                          .....Respondents
                 Through: Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Advocate.
                                                       AND
                                        W.P.(C) No. 9741/2009
RAO UDMI RAM MEMORIAL COLLEGE OF
EDUCATION                                  ......Petitioner
                Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharawat, Advocate.
                                                     Versus
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER
EDUCATION & ANR.                          .....Respondents
                 Through: Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Advocate.
W.P.(C) No. 9670/2009, W.P.(C) No. 9702/2009, W.P.(C) No. 9703/2009, W.P.(C) No. 9705/2009, W.P.(C) No. 9741/2009,
W.P.(C) No. 9765/2009, W.P.(C) No. 9766/2009, W.P.(C) No. 812/2010, W.P.(C) No. 2017/2010, W.P.(C) No. 2019/2010,
W.P.(C) No. 4220/2010, W.P.(C) No. 4221/2010, W.P.(C) No. 4225/2010, W.P.(C) No. 4226/2010 & W.P.(C) No. 6409/2010

                                                                                                           Page 2 of 32
                                                        AND
                                        W.P.(C) No. 9765/2009
HAPPY COLLEGE OF EDUCATION                 ......Petitioner
                Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharawat, Advocate.
                                                     Versus
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER
EDUCATION & ANR.                          .....Respondents
                 Through: Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Advocate.

                                                       AND
                                        W.P.(C) No. 9766/2009
RASTRIYA VIDYA COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
& ANR.                                      ......Petitioners
                 Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharawat, Advocate.
                                                     Versus
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER
EDUCATION & ANR.                          .....Respondents
                 Through: Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Advocate.

                                                       AND
                                         W.P.(C) No. 812/2010
B.M.P. COLLEGE OF EDUCATION                   ......Petitioner
                  Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharawat, Advocate.
                                                     Versus
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER
EDUCATION & ANR.                          .....Respondents
                 Through: Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Advocate.
W.P.(C) No. 9670/2009, W.P.(C) No. 9702/2009, W.P.(C) No. 9703/2009, W.P.(C) No. 9705/2009, W.P.(C) No. 9741/2009,
W.P.(C) No. 9765/2009, W.P.(C) No. 9766/2009, W.P.(C) No. 812/2010, W.P.(C) No. 2017/2010, W.P.(C) No. 2019/2010,
W.P.(C) No. 4220/2010, W.P.(C) No. 4221/2010, W.P.(C) No. 4225/2010, W.P.(C) No. 4226/2010 & W.P.(C) No. 6409/2010

                                                                                                           Page 3 of 32
                                                        AND
                                        W.P.(C) No. 2017/2010
I.P.S. COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
RESEARCH & TECHNOLOGY                        ......Petitioner
                   Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharawat, Advocate.
                                                     Versus
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER
EDUCATION & ANR.                          .....Respondents
                 Through: Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Advocate.

                                                       AND
                                        W.P.(C) No. 2019/2010
I.P. COLLEGE OF EDUCATION                    ......Petitioner
                  Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharawat, Advocate.
                                                     Versus
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER
EDUCATION & ANR.                          .....Respondents
                 Through: Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Advocate.

                                                       AND
                                        W.P.(C) No. 4220/2010
IPS SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT & EDUCATION ......Petitioner
                 Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharawat, Advocate.
                                                     Versus
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER
EDUCATION & ANR.                          .....Respondents
                 Through: Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Advocate.
W.P.(C) No. 9670/2009, W.P.(C) No. 9702/2009, W.P.(C) No. 9703/2009, W.P.(C) No. 9705/2009, W.P.(C) No. 9741/2009,
W.P.(C) No. 9765/2009, W.P.(C) No. 9766/2009, W.P.(C) No. 812/2010, W.P.(C) No. 2017/2010, W.P.(C) No. 2019/2010,
W.P.(C) No. 4220/2010, W.P.(C) No. 4221/2010, W.P.(C) No. 4225/2010, W.P.(C) No. 4226/2010 & W.P.(C) No. 6409/2010

                                                                                                           Page 4 of 32
                                                        AND
                                        W.P.(C) No. 4221/2010
I.B. WOMEN COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
& MANAGEMENT                              ......Petitioner
                 Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharawat, Advocate.
                                                     Versus
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER
EDUCATION & ANR.                          .....Respondents
                 Through: Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Advocate.
                                                       AND
                                        W.P.(C) No. 4225/2010
A.M. COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
                                                                             ......Petitioner
                                        Through:            Mr. Sanjay Sharawat, Advocate.
                                                     Versus
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER
EDUCATION & ANR.                          .....Respondents
                 Through: Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Advocate.
                                                       AND
                                        W.P.(C) No. 4226/2010
A.M. COLLEGE OF EDUCATION                   ......Petitioner
                 Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharawat, Advocate.
                                                     Versus
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER
EDUCATION & ANR.                          .....Respondents
                 Through: Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Advocate.
W.P.(C) No. 9670/2009, W.P.(C) No. 9702/2009, W.P.(C) No. 9703/2009, W.P.(C) No. 9705/2009, W.P.(C) No. 9741/2009,
W.P.(C) No. 9765/2009, W.P.(C) No. 9766/2009, W.P.(C) No. 812/2010, W.P.(C) No. 2017/2010, W.P.(C) No. 2019/2010,
W.P.(C) No. 4220/2010, W.P.(C) No. 4221/2010, W.P.(C) No. 4225/2010, W.P.(C) No. 4226/2010 & W.P.(C) No. 6409/2010

                                                                                                           Page 5 of 32
                                                        AND
                                        W.P.(C) No. 6409/2010
LNT COLLEGE OF EDUCATION                   ......Petitioner
                 Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharawat, Advocate.
                                                     Versus
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER
EDUCATION & ANR.                           .....Respondents
                 Through: Mr. V.K. Rao, Sr. Advocate with
                          Mr. Vaibhav Kalra, Advocates.

CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1.        Whether reporters of Local papers may
          be allowed to see the judgment?                                                  Yes
2.        To be referred to the reporter or not?                                           Yes
3.        Whether the judgment should be reported                                          Yes
          in the Digest?

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The petitions entail a common question of law which can be formulated as under:

Whether under the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, the Regional Committee has any power to inspect an Institution granted recognition under the said Act or whether the power of such inspection is only with the Council constituted under the said Act.

W.P.(C) No. 9670/2009, W.P.(C) No. 9702/2009, W.P.(C) No. 9703/2009, W.P.(C) No. 9705/2009, W.P.(C) No. 9741/2009, W.P.(C) No. 9765/2009, W.P.(C) No. 9766/2009, W.P.(C) No. 812/2010, W.P.(C) No. 2017/2010, W.P.(C) No. 2019/2010, W.P.(C) No. 4220/2010, W.P.(C) No. 4221/2010, W.P.(C) No. 4225/2010, W.P.(C) No. 4226/2010 & W.P.(C) No. 6409/2010

2. It is the contention of the petitioners that under the Act, the power to

inspect is in the Council only and the Regional Committees have not been

empowered to carry out inspection after recognition has been granted to an

Institution. The respondents National Council for Teacher Education and

the Northern Regional Committee being the respondents in each of the

petitions, contend otherwise.

3. The petitioners contend:

A. That the Act provides for inspection only under Section 13 which

is as under:-

"13. Inspection (1) For the purpose of ascertaining whether the recognized institutions are functioning in accordance with the provisions of this Act, the Council may cause inspection of any such institution, to be made by such persons as it may direct, and in such manner as may be prescribed.

(2) The Council shall communicate to the institution the date on which inspection under sub- section (1) is to be made and the institution shall be entitled to be associated with the inspection in such manner as may be prescribed.

(3) The Council shall communicate to the said institution its views in regard to the results of any such inspection and may, after ascertaining the opinion of that institution, recommend to that institution the action to be taken as a result of such inspection.

(4) All communications to the institution under this section shall be made to the executive authority thereof, and the executive authority of the institution shall report to the Council the action, if any, which is proposed to be taken for the purpose of implementing any such recommendation as is referred to in sub-section (3)."

It is contended that Section 13 empowers only the Council to cause

inspection and does not empower the Regional Committees to

inspect or to cause inspection.

B. That none of the other provisions of the Act vest any power in

the Regional Committees to inspect an Institution once

recognition has been granted.

C. That even though Section 17 of the Act empowers the Regional

Committees to withdraw recognition but the same also does not

empower the Regional Committees to inspect or to cause

inspection of the Institution. For convenience, Section 17(1)

relevant in this regard is set out herein as under:-

"(1) Where the Regional Committee is, on its own motion or on any representation received from any person, satisfied that a recognised institution has contravened any of the provisions of this Act, or the rules, regulations, orders made or issued thereunder, or any condition subject to which recognition under sub-section (3) of section 14 or permission under sub-section (3) of section 15 was granted, it may withdraw recognition of such recognised institution, for reasons to be recorded in writing:

Provided that no such order against the recognised institution shall be passed unless a reasonable opportunity of making representation against the proposed order has been given to such recognised institution:

Provided further that the order withdrawing or refusing recognition passed by the Regional Committee shall come into force only with effect from the end of the academic session next following the date of communication of such order."

D. It is rather contended the power under Section 17 of the Act can

be invoked only after the Regional Committee has satisfied

itself that a recognized Institution has contravened any of the

provisions of the Act or the rules, regulations, orders made

thereunder or any condition subject to which recognition or

permission was granted. It is urged that the initiation of

proceedings for withdrawal of recognition being dependant on a

satisfaction being first recorded, an inspection which is

necessarily inquisitorial or to satisfy whether an Institution is

complying with the Act, rules, conditions, etc. or not, cannot be

a part of Section 17 in as much as the satisfaction on the basis of

some material of contravention of the Act, rules, regulations,

conditions etc. by the Institution is a precursor to the initiation

of proceedings under Section 17 of the Act.

E. That two distinct Bodies/authorities i.e. the Council and the

Regional Committee have been created by the legislature under

the Act and these two Bodies must exercise statutory powers

strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Act.

Reliance in this regard is placed on Deewan Singh v. Rajendra

Prasad Ardevi AIR 2007 SC 767, M.P. Wakf Board v. Subhan

Shah (2006) 10 SCC 696 and Kurmanchal Institute of Degree

and Diploma v. Chancellor, M.J.P. Rohilkhand University

(2007) 6 SCC 35.

F. It is contended that once the Act provides inspection to be done

by a particular Body, i.e. the Council, it cannot be permitted in

any other manner or by any other person/Body other than the

Council. Reliance in this regard is placed on Bhavnagar

University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. (2003) 2 SCC 111.

G. That as per the provisions of the Act, the Regional Committees

are subordinate to the Council and the legislature having vested

the power of inspection in a superior Body, the said power

cannot be inferred in a subordinate Body under the Act.

H. Reliance is also placed on:-

(i) Taylor v. Taylor (1875-76) L.R. 1 Ch.D 426 on the proposition that when a statutory power is conferred and the mode of exercising it is provided for, it means that no other mode is to be adopted;

(ii) Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor AIR 1936 PC 253 on the proposition that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all and other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden;

(iii) Patna Improvement Trust v. Shrimati Lakshmi Devi AIR 1963 SC 1077 also on the proposition that if the statute directs a thing to be done in a particular way, it shall be deemed to have prohibited the doing of that thing in any other way;

(iv) State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh AIR 1964 SC 358 also on the same proposition;

(v) Ramchandra Keshav Adke v. Govind Joti Chavare (1975) 1 SCC 559 on the same proposition;

(vi) Chandra Kishore Jha v. Mahavir Prasad (1999) 8 SCC 266 on the same proposition;

(vii) Surender Pal Singh Chauhan v. Bar Council of India 158(2009) DLT 697 on the same proposition;

(viii) Passages from the text book A Selection of Legal Maxims by Herbert Broom on the maxim Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius i.e. the express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of another and from the text book Interpretation of Statutes by N.S. Bindra qua Expressum Facit Cessare Tacitum i.e. what is expressed makes what is implied to cease;

(ix) Order dated 20th September, 2010 of the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior in WP No. 4501/2010 titled Shri Vaishnav Institute of Technology & Management v. National Council for Teacher Education directing that action by the Regional Committee under Section 17 of the Act can be taken only after inspection by the Council under Section 13 of the Act.

4. Per contra, the counsel for the respondents has argued:-

A. That in an SLP preferred against the order of the Division

Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court (supra), the operation

thereof has been stayed.

B. That the Regional Committee is also one of the "Bodies of the

Council" under Chapter V of the Act and hence would be

covered by the word "Council" in Section 13 of the Act.

C. Alternatively, Section 13 of the Act empowers the Council to

cause inspection to be made "by such person as it may direct"

and the Regional Committee is a "person" and thus the Council

can direct the Regional Committee to carry out the inspection.

Reliance in this regard is placed on Section 3(42) of the General

Clauses Act, 1897 whereunder an association or body of

individuals is included within the meaning of "person"; it is

urged that the Regional Committee is an association of persons.

D. That Section 13 of the Act has to be viewed in the light of

Section 12 of the Act dealing with the functions of the Council.

Attention is invited to Section 12 (j), (m) & (n) in particular.

E. Reference is made to Section 21 of the General Clauses Act

whereunder power to issue includes power to rescind. It is urged

that since the Regional Committee admittedly has the power to

inspect before grant of recognition, it would also have the power

to inspect before withdrawal of recognition.

F. That Sections 13 & 17 have also to be viewed in the light of the

respective Chapters under which they are placed.

G. That the powers of the Regional Committees are not subservient

to the Council and Regional Committees cannot be said to be

subordinate to the Council.

H. That to deprive the Regional Committee of the power to inspect

would interfere with its power to take a decision under Section

17 of the Act of withdrawal of recognition.

5. The counsel for the petitioners in rejoinder has contended that the

NCTE Act being a special statute, the provisions of General Clauses Act

would not apply. Reliance is placed on State of Haryana v. Baldev

Spinners Pvt. Ltd. JT 2009 (5) SC 237 holding that the General Clauses

Act merely embodies a rule of construction which can be displaced to the

extent the provisions, the scheme and the object of any particular statute

indicate a contrary intention and that the General Clauses Act is intended

to apply only where the statute in question does not contain a specific

provision governing or regulating the matter. It is further contended that

Section 21 of the General Clauses Act does not apply where the statutory

authority is required to act judicially or quasi-judicially, as the Regional

Committees are required to act in exercise of function under Section 17 of

the Act. Reliance in this regard is also placed on the passages in text book

Principles of Statutory Interpretation by G.P. Singh. It is further

contended that the Regional Committees are distinct from the Council. To

buttress that the Regional Committee is subordinate to the Council,

attention is invited to Section 18 of the Act whereunder the orders of the

Regional Committee are appealable before the Council. It is contended that

the power of inspection cannot be imputed in Section 17 in as much as

Section 17 does not permit gathering/collection of material for withdrawal

of recognition. On enquiry as to what is the prejudice which the

Institutions would suffer if the inspection were to be permitted / done by

the Regional Committees, it is contended that the Council is a superior,

more mature Body manned by senior persons and if the Regional

Committees were to be empowered to inspect, it would lead to misuse of

power of inspection and to harassment to the Institutions. Reliance is also

placed on Bidi, Bidi Leaves' & Tobacco Merchants Association v. The

State of Bombay 1962 (Supp.) 1 SCR 381 on the proposition that if

legislature enables something to be done, it gives power at the same time

by necessary implication to do everything which is indispensable for the

purpose of carrying out the purposes in view. Attention is also invited to

Rule 7(2) of the NCTE Rules, 1997 to show that it is the Chairperson of

the Council who determines the duties of the Regional Committee and

exercises supervision and control over the Regional Committee.

6. I have considered the matter in the light of aforesaid submissions

and otherwise. The preamble to the Act shows that the same was enacted

with a view to achieving planned and coordinated development of the

teacher education system and for regulation and proper maintenance of

norms and standards in the teacher education system. Undoubtedly, the Act

constitutes two distinct Bodies i.e. the Council established under Section 3

of the Act by the Central Government and the Regional Committees

established under Section 20 of the Act by the Council. The functions of

the Council in Section 12 of the Act are broadly the same as the reasons in

the preamble. Though the Act requires all Institutions offering or intending

to offer a course or training in teacher education to seek recognition under

the Act but the power to grant such recognition has been vested in the

Regional Committees (see Section 14) and not in the Council. The

applications for recognition are required to be made to and dealt with by

the Regional Committee only. It is the Regional Committee which has to

satisfy itself that the applicant for recognition has adequate financial

resources, accommodation, library, qualified staff, laboratory etc. and that

it fulfills such other conditions required for imparting a course or training

in teacher education as provided under the Act and the Regulations framed

thereunder. The Regulations framed under the Act require the Regional

Committee to cause the applicant Institution to be inspected by a team of

experts called the Visiting Team, with a view to assess the level of

preparedness of the Institution to commence the course. It is expressly

provided in the Regulations that inspection shall not be subject to the

consent of the Institution; rather the decision of the Regional Committee to

cause the inspection is merely required to be communicated to the

Institution (See Regulation 7(4) of the NCTE (Recognition Norms &

Procedure) Regulations, 2009). The proviso to Regulation 7(5) of the said

Regulations is significant in this regard-

"Provided further that at the time of inspection for new courses or enhancement of intake of the existing course, the visiting team shall verify the facilities for existing teacher education courses accorded recognition by National Council for Teacher Education and would ascertain the fulfillment and maintenance of Regulations and Norms and Standards for the existing courses as well."

It shows that at least at the time of inspection for additional courses or for

new courses, the inspection team constituted by the Regional Committee is

empowered to ascertain the fulfillment and maintenance of regulations,

norms and standards for the existing courses as well. It is thus not as if the

Regional Committee after the grant of recognition has no power

whatsoever of inspection. The Regulations contemplate inspection qua

existing courses at least at the time of inspection for new

courses/additional intake.

7. Similarly, the power to withdraw recognition is also vested only in

the Regional Committee and not in the Council.

8. The question which thus arises is, whether the Act can be read in a

manner suggested by the petitioners and which interpretation would take

away from the Body entrusted with powers of grant and withdrawal of

recognition, the power to ensure that the Institutions so recognized by it are

complying with the Act, Rules, Regulations and the conditions of

recognition. Acceptance of the contention of the petitioners would render

the Regional Committee toothless and blind once it has granted the

recognition. Such an interpretation would severely restrict the power of

Regional Committee to regulate and ensure maintenance of norms and

standards of teacher education system. The Supreme Court in Carew & Co.

Ltd. v. UOI (1975) 2 SCC 791 held that minor definitional disability,

divorced from the hard realities, if stressed as the sole touchstone, is sure

to prove disastrous when special types of legislation are interpreted.

9. I also find that under Section 17 withdrawal of recognition by the

Regional Committee can be not only on any representation received from

any person but also by the Regional Committee on its own motion

i.e. suo moto. If it were to be held that the Regional Committee cannot

post-recognition inspect the Institutions, the same would severely curtail

its power of taking suo moto action for withdrawal of recognition and such

curtailment is not found to be serving the purpose which the Act was

intended to serve.

10. A statute is to be read and interpreted purposively and to allow the

object which it sought to achieve and the mischief which it sought to cure

to be achieved/cured and not in a pedantic manner. It is the duty of the

Courts of justice to try to get at the real intention of the legislature by

carefully looking into the whole scope and intention of the legislature

ascertained upon a review of the language, subject matter and importance

of the provision in relation to the general object intended to be secured, the

mischief to be prevented and the remedy intended to be provided by the

Act. If the language used in a statute can be construed widely so as to

salvage the remedial intendment, the Court must adopt it.

11. Faced with the aforesaid, the counsel for the petitioners would

contend that it is not as if the legislature has not at all provided for

inspection; the regulatory power of inspection has been vested in the

Council.

12. However the Council has its seat at Delhi while the Regional

Committees are closer in proximity to the Institutions granted recognition

by them. Admittedly all records of the Institutions including of the

videography as required to be prepared at the time of inspection by the

Visiting Team prior to recognition are to be in the possession of the

Regional Committee. The regulatory role under the Act can be better

exercised by the Regional Committee than by the Council. It is the

Regional Committee which can compare whether the infrastructure shown

at the time of seeking recognition continues to exist or not. The counsel for

the petitioners in response contends that the Council can prior to the

inspection call for records from the Regional Committee, carry out the

inspection and if finds any discrepancy, forward the material to the

Regional Committee for initiating action under Section 17 of the Act. I fail

to see any logic in following such circuitous procedure. I also fail to see

any reason as to why, when the mandatory notice prior to withdrawal of

recognition and hearing preceding withdrawal has to be given by the

Regional Committee, why the Regional Committee cannot be said to be

entitled to inspect the Institution to verify whether the defence of the

Institution against the notice of withdrawal of recognition has any merit or

not. There can be no substitute in such cases for ocular inspection.

13. Travelling across the country by road, one cannot but help notice a

large number of buildings along the highways proclaiming themselves to

be educational institutions and with no settlements, villages/towns in

vicinity and in absolute wilderness; one often wonders as to who studies in

such educational institutions. Cases are also not unknown and have come

before this Court where the allegations are that the infrastructure shown to

the Visiting Team prior to the grant of recognition was found to be no

longer existing. The practice of obtaining recognition and thereafter

issuing Degrees/Certificates without actually imparting training and which

is essential for issuance of a Degree/Certificate, cannot thus be said to be

unknown. I am of the opinion that it is the Body vested with the power to

grant and withdraw the recognition which is best suited to carry out the

inspection necessary for ensuring the continued compliance of laws, rules,

regulations, norms and standards by the Institutions granted recognition.

The regulatory power vested in the Regional Committee would be severely

affected without such power to inspect. A regulatory body cannot be

blindfolded. The Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Amar Singh (1974)

2 SCC 70 held that the rule of law must run close to the rule of life and the

Court must read into an enactment, language permitting, that meaning

which promotes the benignant intent of the legislation in preference to the

one which perverts the scheme of the statute - any interpretation unaware

of the living aims, ideology and legal anatomy of an Act will miss its soul

substance.

14. As far as the arguments of law of the counsel for the petitioners are

concerned, the power of inspection under Section 13 of the Act vested in

the Council cannot as aforesaid undermine the inherent power of the

Regional Committee vested with regulatory functions under the Act as

well as under Section 17 of the Act, to satisfy itself that the Institution to

which it has granted recognition is continuing to comply with the law,

rules and regulations. I have also wondered whether in the absence of

Section 13 of the Act it could have been urged that there was no inherent

power of inspection in the Regional Committee. In my opinion, no.

15. The counsel for the petitioners has replied that the statutory Bodies

as the Regional Committee have no inherent powers as in the Court and

would have only such powers as are vested in them. Reliance in this regard

is placed on Birla Higher Secondary School v. Lt. Governor Delhi ILR

(1973) I Delhi 634. I am unable to agree. The same depends upon the

nature of the statutory Body. A statutory Body regulatory in character has

to be given full play and has to be held to be empowered to do all things

necessary to enable it to effectively regulate what it has been constituted to

regulate. Rather qua such Bodies, there has to be an express provision

limiting the scope of its regulatory powers for it to be held that it is not

empowered to in the course of regulatory function do a thing which is

necessary for regulation. I am unable to find any restriction on the inherent

power of Regional Committee as a regulatory Body to inspect. No such

restrictions can be read in Section 13 of the Act also. Need for expressly

vesting a power of inspection in the Council by incorporation of Section 13

of the Act arose because considering the functions of the Council and

which are only as a Body making the policy and being not involved in

grant or withdrawal of recognition save as an appellate body against the

orders of the Regional Committee, it could not have had the power of

inspection without the same being expressly conferred on it. However the

said power is in addition to the powers of the Regional Committee and

cannot be said to be in derogation thereof. The conferment of power of

inspection on the Council also appears to have been deemed necessary for

the Council to independently verify whether the recognitions granted by W.P.(C) No. 9670/2009, W.P.(C) No. 9702/2009, W.P.(C) No. 9703/2009, W.P.(C) No. 9705/2009, W.P.(C) No. 9741/2009, W.P.(C) No. 9765/2009, W.P.(C) No. 9766/2009, W.P.(C) No. 812/2010, W.P.(C) No. 2017/2010, W.P.(C) No. 2019/2010, W.P.(C) No. 4220/2010, W.P.(C) No. 4221/2010, W.P.(C) No. 4225/2010, W.P.(C) No. 4226/2010 & W.P.(C) No. 6409/2010

the Regional Committee are in accordance with law, rules and regulations

or not. Section 21 of the Act empowers the Council to terminate a

Regional Committee upon finding the Regional Committee to have abused

the power and to reconstitute the Regional Committee. The Supreme Court

recently in SEBI v. Ajay Agarwal (2010) 3 SCC 765 read the statute

setting up another regulatory Body i.e. Securities & Exchange Board of

India (SEBI) in a similar fashion i.e. to adopt an interpretation which

furthers the purpose of law and if possible eschew the one which frustrates

it. The said judgment was also followed by this Court in Kimsuk Krishna

Sinha v. SEBI (2010) 100 SCL 197 (Delhi).

16. The contention of the petitioners that the power of inspection is

negated in Section 17 of the Act owing to the satisfaction of contravention

being precursor to Section 17, also cannot be accepted and is on a

misreading of Section 17. Satisfaction (prima facie), under Section 17 is

necessary for issuing notice to show cause as to why recognition be not

withdrawn. However, such satisfaction (prima facie) can be either on its

suo moto inspection or on a complaint or representation from any person. It

cannot be said that because satisfaction is necessary for initiating

proceedings under Section 17, inspection cannot precede such satisfaction.

It is possible that on inspection no serious irregularity or contravention is

found and in which case no ground for initiation for proceedings under

Section 17 of the Act would be made out.

17. The arguments of the counsel for petitioners that the power of

inspection if held vested in Regional Committees, is likely to be abused, is

also not found acceptable. The Apex Court in Ajit Kumar Nag v. General

Manager (PJ), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Haldia (2005) 7 SCC 764

has held that a provision which is otherwise legal, valid and intra vires

cannot be declared unconstitutional or ultra vires merely on the ground

that there is possibility of abuse or misuse of such power; if the provision

is legal and valid, it will remain in the statute book. Moreover, there is no

reason for this Court to hold that the provision of inspection is likely to be

misused/abused by the Regional Committees.

18. The counsel for the petitioners after the close of the hearing has filed

copies of following judgments:

a. State through CBI v. Parmeshwaran Subramani (2009) 9 SCC 729

b. Pallawi Resources Ltd. v. Protos Engineering Company Private Limited (2010) 5 SCC 196

c. Satheedevi v. Prasanna (2010) 5 SCC 622

d. State of Jharkhand v. Govind Singh (2005) 10 SCC 437

e. Sultana Begum v. Prem Chand Jain (1997) 1 SCC 373

on interpretation of statutes but which are neither found

applicable/apposite nor detract me from taking the view aforesaid.

19. I, therefore, do not find any merit in the contentions of the

petitioners. It is held that the Regional Committee has the power to inspect

the Institutions to which recognition has been granted.

20. It is not deemed necessary to deal with the factual situation in which

the question aforesaid had arisen. Suffice it is to state that while in some

cases, the Council had directed the Regional Committee to carry out the

inspection, in others, the direction for inspection by the Regional

Committee was issued in the decision of the Appeal Committee of the

Council exercising appellate power. Attention may however be invited to

Section 20(6) and to Section 27 of the Act empowering the Council to

assign/delegate any of its functions to the Regional Committee and the

Regional Committee to perform functions of the Council so