Heard.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the controversy at hand was raised in other writ petition No. 21942(M/S) of 2019 which has been decided on 20.09.2019 in the following terms:-
"Heard Shri Prashant Chandra, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Karunanidhi Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State, Shri O.P.M. Tripathi, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and Shri Savitra Vardhan Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 3.
Present writ petition is filed by the petitioner Institutions for a mandamus commanding the NCTE to accept the hard copy of their application for ITEP Recognition Programme.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the fee and the documents were required to be deposited online to NCTE and a cut off date for the same was 31.7.2019. The petitioner Institutions went online and deposited the requisite fee but thereafter, due to heavy load, the website failed to produce the web page for submission of documents. It is further stated that in some cases, NCTE thereafter refunded the fee deposited which again under the orders of this Court, has been deposited.
Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that there was no mistake on the part of the petitioner and the documents could not be uploaded as the website of NCTE failed.
On instructions, Sri O.P.M. Tripathi states that a policy decision is taken by the NCTE to accept the documents and process the same with regard to the institutions which deposited the fee by 31.7.2019 i.e., the cut off date.
Since learned counsel for petitioner states that the fee was deposited within time, the petitioner is permitted to approach the NCTE within a week from today with all their documents along with proof of deposit of fee and on being satisfied, the NCTE may process their documents. In case it is found that the fee was deposited on or before 31.7.2019 but was thereafter refunded by NCTE, the NCTE shall again accept the fee by way of a demand within the aforesaid period of one week and process the documents of all such petitioners.
With the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of."
Shri O.P.M. Tripathi, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 says that the proof of deposit of fee by the petitioner is suspect as the payment has been made from somebody else's account to which learned counsel for the petitioner says that this entire exercise of online payment was made through a Cyber Cafe and the money was deposited in the account of person who was conducting the exercise at the Cyber Cafe.
It is always open for the concerned Authorities to verify the factum of refund and then consider the claim of the petitioner in accordance with judgment dated 20.09.2019 quoted hereinabove and if it is found to be similar then the same benefit would be extended to it on the same terms, otherwise that matter shall be laid to rest.
With the aforesaid observations/ directions the writ petition is dispose of.
Order Date :- 26.9.2019 R.K.P.