The Director, Maharishi Centre ... vs The National Council For Teacher ...
2012 Latest Caselaw 884 Del

*           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

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

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

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