Delhi High Court
Dehat Vikas Shiksha Samiti Bewal ... vs National Council For Teacher ... on 29 April, 2019
$~82
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 29th April, 2019
+ W.P.(C) 4404/2019 & CM APPLs. 19578-79/2019
DEHAT VIKAS SHIKSHA SAMITI BEWAL AND ANR.
..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Adv.
versus
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER
EDUCATION AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, SC for
NCTE with Ms. Preeti Kumra, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
% J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
1. This writ petition is directed against a "refusal order" dated 30th
August, 2018, passed by the Northern Regional Committee
(hereinafter referred to as "the NRC") of the National Council for
Teachers Education (hereinafter referred to as „the NCTE"), whereby,
in exercise of powers conferred by Section 14/15 (3) of the NCTE
Act, 1993, the application, of the petitioners, for
recognition/permission to start a two year B.Ed. Course in the MDS
College of Education, Mahendragarh, Haryana, has been refused.
2. Incidentally, the impugned refusal order records the fact that the
petitioners had, in fact, submitted a reply, dated 19th July, 2018, to the
Show Cause Notice dated 6th July, 2018.
3. It is a settled position, in law, that any order, visiting a citizen
with civil consequences, has necessarily to be preceded by strict
compliance with the principles of natural justice, unless the provisions
of the statute exclude the same, either expressly or by necessary
implication.
4. Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, learned SC for the NCTE, does not seek
to contend that there is any exclusion of the applicability of the
principles of natural justice in the provisions of the NCTE Act
governing issuance of Show Cause Notice dated 6th July, 2018 and
adjudication thereof. She only seeks to contend that the said
provisions do not contemplate grant of hearing prior to adjudication of
the show cause notice and that, the petitioners have a right of appeal
which, if they choose to exercise, would entitle them to a hearing
before the Appellate Committee.
5. It is settled that grant of hearing, at the stage of appeal, cannot
cure the defect of non-compliance with the audi alteram partem
requirement at the stage of adjudication of a show cause notice.
6. The impugned order, clearly, visits the petitioners with civil
consequences.
7. It has been held by Supreme Court, in a catena of authorities,
including Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks,
Mumbai (1998) 8 SCC 1 and Harbans Lal Sahnia v Indian Oil
Corporation Limited (2003) 2 SCC 107, that, where an order is passed
in violation of the principles of natural justice, the party ought not to
be relegated to an alternate remedy and that this Court should not
hesitate from exercising its prerogative writ jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India.
8. Mr. Amitesh Kumar is agreeable to the matter being remanded
to the NRC for a re-consideration, after affording his client an
opportunity of personal hearing.
9. In view thereof, I am of the opinion that the interests of justice
would be sub-served if the impugned refusal order dated 30th August,
2016 is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to the NRC
for a re-consideration, after affording the petitioners an opportunity of
personal hearing.
10. For the said purpose, the petitioners shall appear before the
NRC in its next meeting, the date of which would be notified by the
NRC to the petitioners sufficiently in advance. The petitioners be also
informed of the next date on its e-mail Id, which is
[email protected]
11. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of with
no order as to costs.
12. CM APPLs.19578 and 19579/2019 also stand disposed of.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J
APRIL 29, 2019/dsn
