Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. By consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal.
3. This writ petition has been filed praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the appellate order of the first respondent, dated 22.9.2008, and quash the same.
4. It has been stated that the petitioner Trust had applied to the second respondent seeking for recognition to the proposed College of Education, in the name and style of "Divine College of Education, who are imparting B.Ed. Course, from the academic year 2006-2007. The application, dated 31.12.2005, submitted by the petitioner, had been received by the second respondent, on 2.1.2006. The defects pointed out by the second respondent had been complied with by the petitioner. The visiting team of the second respondent had inspected the petitioner College, on 28.4.2007, and it had expressed its satisfaction, with regard to the infrastructural and instructional facilities provided by the College. However, the second respondent had issued a notice, dated 28.6.2007, stating that certain deficiencies had not been complied with by the petitioner College. The petitioner College had sent a reply, on 21.9.2007, after the necessary compliance. Since no orders had been passed, thereafter, the petitioner had sent a letter to the second respondent, on 31.1.2008, requesting him to pass necessary orders granting recognition to the petitioner Institute, for starting the B.Ed. course. Since no orders were forth coming from the office of the second respondent, the petitioner had made certain enquiries from the office of the second respondent and it was found that an order of rejection had been passed by the second respondent, on 29.11.2007. On verification it was found that the order, dated 29.11.2007, rejecting the request for recognition had been despatched to a wrong address at Ariyalur, instead of sending it to Ariyavoour in Trichy District. In such circumstances, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the first respondent, challenging the order of the second respondent, dated 29.11.2007. However, without considering the request made by the petitioner, the first respondent had dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner stating that the appeal had been filed, belatedly, after 8 months and 13 days from the date of the impugned order.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 22.9.2008, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner, is arbitrary, illegal and void. The first respondent had not considered the reasons for the delay stated by the petitioner. In fact, sufficient cause had been shown by the petitioner for the belated filing of the appeal. In fact, the delay had happened due to the fact that the second respondent had sent the impugned order, dated 29.11.2007, to Ariyalur, instead of sending it to the address of the petitioner at Ariyavoor, in Trichy District. Even though the petitioner had fulfilled all the requirements, the second respondent had passed the impugned order, dated 29.11.2007, without considering the compliance report submitted by the petitioner. In such circumstances, the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 22.9.2008, is to be set aside by this Court and the matter is to be remitted back to the first respondent to pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, within a specified time.
6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted, based on the instructions received from the respondents, that the impugned order of the second respondent, dated 29.11.2007, rejecting the request of the petitioner, for the grant of recognition to the petitioner, for starting the B.Ed. Course, had been sent in the name of the petitioner to Ariyalur, instead of sending it to Ariyavoor, in Trichy District. However, the mistake had been committed, inadvertently.
7. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner, as well as the respondents, it is clear that the delay in filing the appeal before the first respondent, challenging the order of the second respondent, dated 29.11.2007, is due to the fact that the order of the second respondent, dated 29.11.2007, had been sent to the wrong address. Therefore, the delay in filing the appeal before the first respondent cannot be attributed to the petitioner. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the appeal filed by the petitioner before the first respondent, against the order of the second respondent, dated 29.11.2007, is to be heard on merits. In such view of the matter, the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 22.9.2008, is set aside and the first respondent is directed to hear the appeal filed by the petitioner, dated 31.7.2008, on merits, and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity to the petitioner, within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed.
csh To
1. The Member Secretary, National Council for Teacher Education, Hans Bahvan, Wing II, No.1, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110 002.
2.The Regional Director, National Council for Teacher Education, Southern Regional Committee, First Floor, C.S.D.Buildings, H.M.T. Township, Bangalore 31