Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. It is stated that the petitioner Trust is a registered Trust with Registration No.546/07. One of the main objects of the petitioner Trust is to establish, run, manage or to aid or contribute and assess in establishing, running and managing educational and research institutions for the advancement of knowledge in technical, vocational and provisional fields. As such, the petitioner Trust had intended to establish a College of Education in the name and style of "Vallalar College of Education" at Melmuthukur Village, Gudiyatham Taluk, Vellore District. Therefore, the petitioner Trust had applied to the second respondent by an application, dated 30.10.2008, in the prescribed format, along with all the necessary documents, in respect of the land, the proposed building, infrastructural and instructional facilities, as well as the fixed deposit amounts towards endowment fund and corpus fund, as prescribed by the first respondent, to establish the proposed College of Education, for the academic year 2009-2010, with an annual intake of 100 students. Further, it had acquired the lands necessary for the establishment of the college, by way of a lease for a period of 30 years, from the Chairman of the Trust, by a lease deed, dated 3.12.2007, registered as Document No.7534 of 2007 at the Sub Registrar's office at Gudiyatham in Vellore District.
3. It has been further stated that the application, dated 30.10.2008, had been submitted, on 31.10.2008, at the Office of the second respondent. At this stage, it was suggested that the land taken on lease by the petitioner Trust, from the Chairman of Trust, should be transferred to the College, on ownership basis, as per the present norms prevailing for the grant of recognition for teacher education institutions. In such circumstances, the land under lease had been gifted to the management of the College by way of a gift deed, which had been executed in favour of the petitioner, on 7.11.2008, registered as Document No.8479 of 2008, at the office of the Sub Registrar, Gudiyatham, Vellore District.
4. It has been further stated that the second respondent, vide his letter, dated 12.11.2008, had intimated that the proposed Institution should have the land in its name and therefore, the lease deed was not acceptable, as per the regulations, dated 10.12.2008. Accordingly, the petitioner has been advised to fulfill the pre-requisite conditions, as per the latest regulations and to submit the application, thereafter, for the grant of recognition. The said intimation had been given by the second respondent on a preliminary scrutiny of the application and the documents submitted by the petitioner, as per Regulation 7(1) of the regulations, dated 27.11.2007.
5. It has been further stated that the land in question had already been transferred to the petitioner Management, on 7.11.2008 itself, by registering the necessary gift deed. However, the possession of the land had been with the petitioner Management from 3.12.2007 by way of a registered lease deed, executed by the Chairman of the Trust. Therefore, the petitioner had re-submitted the returned application to the Office of the second respondent, on 24.11.2008 and it had been received by the said office, on 5.12.2008. While so, the second respondent by his proceedings, dated 10.12.2008, had intimated that the application, re-submitted by the petitioner, along with the gift deed, dated 7.11.2008, had been perused and it was found that the gift deed was made only, on 7.11.2008, which is after the last date prescribed for accepting the applications by the second respondent, for the academic session 2008-2009. Accordingly, the application had been rejected, once again, by the second respondent, stating that it would be received after 16.5.2009, for being considered for the academic session 2010-2011. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the impugned order of the second respondent, dated 10.12.2008, rejecting the application of the petitioner is arbitrary, illegal and void. The second respondent ought to have considered the fact that the petitioner had taken possession of the land in question by way of the lease dated 3.12.2007 and therefore, there can be no legal impediment for the consideration of the application of the petitioner after the said land had been transferred to the petitioner by way of a gift deed, dated 7.11.2008.
7. As per
Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, a lease of immovable property is a transfer of a right to enjoy such property for a certain time, expressed or implied or in perpetuity. There can be no distinction between a Government lease and a private lease. As per Regulation 7(1) of the National Council for Teacher Education, dated 27.11.2007, every applicant institute shall ensure submission of the application, complete in all respects. However, in order to rectify the inadvertent omissions or deficiencies in the documents, the office of the Regional Committee shall point out the deficiencies, within 30 days of the receipt of the applications and the applicant shall rectify the deficiencies within 90 days thereafter. Even before the letter of the second respondent, dated 12.11.2008, had been issued the petitioner had fulfilled all the conditions necessary for the grant of recognition. Therefore, the application re-submitted by the petitioner, on 24.11.2008, should have been accepted and processed by the second respondent. Instead he had rejected the said application by his impugned order, dated 10.12.2008, after the prescribed date for accepting the applications.
8. Under Regulation 7(12) of the National Council for Teacher Education, even after the completion of the processing of the application, a further opportunity is to be given to the Institute concerned to rectify the deficiencies, if any. As per Regulation 8(7), the Institution concerned must be in possession of the required land on the date of the application. In the present case the land was in the possession of the petitioner, from 3.12.2007. Thereafter, the ownership of the land had vested in the petitioner, on 7.11.2008, by way of a gift deed. In such circumstances, the second respondent ought not to have rejected the request of the petitioner for the grant of recognition by his impugned proceedings, dated 10.12.2008.
9. As per Regulation 7(1) of the National Council for Teacher Education, the applicant institutions shall ensure submission of applications, complete in all respects. However, in order to cover the inadvertent omissions or deficiencies in the documents, the office of the Regional Committee shall point out the deficiencies, within 30 days of the receipt of the applications, which the applicants shall remove within 90 days. No application shall be processed, if the process fees of Rs.40,000/- is not submitted and such applications would be returned to the applicant Institutions.
10. Thus, it is clear that an application made by an institution could be rejected only on the ground of non-payment of the processing fees of Rs.40,000/-. For all other deficiencies in documents and omissions the applications shall be returned, within 30 days of the receipt of the applications and the applicants shall be given 90 days time to remove such deficiencies, or to rectify such omissions. However, in the present case the second respondent, by his impugned proceedings, dated 10.12.2008, had rejected the application of the petitioner, without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to rectify the deficiencies. The rejection of the application can be made only after the period of 90 days is over. After the compliance of the deficiencies by the applicants a second chance is to be given to further rectify the deficiencies, if any. It is clear that there is no other regulation empowering the second respondent to reject the applications. In such circumstances, this Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to re-process the application of the petitioner, dated 30.10.2008, requesting for the grant of recognition.
11. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent, it has been submitted that the National Council for Teacher Education has revised the Regulation, with effect from 10.12.2007, prescribing the last date as the 31st of October, for every forthcoming academic year. The petitioner had submitted the application on the last date for the submission of such applications, i.e. 31.10.2008, for the grant of recognition for starting the B.Ed., course of one year duration, with an annual intake of 100 students. After scrutiny it was found that the petitioner is in possession of the land under a lease deed, contrary to the provisions of the regulations.
12. As per Regulation 8(7) of the National Council for Teacher Education, no institution shall be granted recognition, unless it is in possession of the required land on the date of the application. Further, the land should be free from all encumbrances and it could be either on ownership basis or on lease from Government or from Governmental institutions, for a period of not less than 30 years. However, in the present case the petitioner had only a lease of the land and therefore, the application of the petitioner could not be accepted.
13. It is further stated that even though the petitioner had converted the lease deed into a gift deed, on 7.11.2008, it was beyond the last date for the submission of applications and therefore, it could not be accepted. The application of the petitioner had been returned, along with the demand draft of Rs.40,000/- and as well as a sum of Rs.1,000/-. The petitioner had misconstrued the facts and it was wrongly understood as though the application had been returned for compliance of certain deficiencies. Since the basic eligibility condition had not been fulfilled by the petitioner, there was no occasion for the respondents to point out the deficiencies to be rectified, within a period of 90 days. Since the petitioner did not possess the ownership of the land, on the date of the submission of the application, the application could not be considered in accordance with the regulations. In such circumstances, the application of the petitioner, dated 30.10.2008, for the grant of recognition for commencing the B.Ed. course cannot be re-considered. However, it is open to the petitioner to apply afresh for the academic year 2010-2011.
14. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents and on a perusal of the records available, it is clear that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason for this Court to grant the reliefs, as prayed for by the petitioner in the present writ petition. The application of the petitioner, dated 30.10.2008, for the grant of recognition could not be considered by the second respondent, as the petitioner did not possess the required lands, as per Regulation 7(1) of the Regulations of the National Council for Teacher Education. In fact, the land in question is said to have been in the possession of the petitioner by way of a lease deed, dated 3.12.2007, registered as Document No.7534 of 2007 at the Sub Registrar's Office at Gudiyatham, Vellore District, as on 30.10.2008, when the petitioner had submitted the application.
15. Even though the land had been gifted to the petitioner by way of a subsequent gift deed, dated 7.11.2008, it is beyond the last date for the submission of the application. The last date prescribed by the revised regulations of the National Council for Teacher Education is the 31st of October for every forth coming academic year. As per Regulation 7(1) of the regulations, the applicant institutions shall submit the applications complete in all respects. In the present case, it is seen that the petitioner had submitted the application, dated 30.10.2008, without fulfilling the basic condition that the land should have been in the possession of the petitioner Institute, on the relevant date, on ownership basis. Since the said condition had not been fulfilled, the second respondent had been constrained to reject the application of the petitioner, dated 30.10.2008. It cannot be taken as an omission or a deficiency which could have been rectified by the petitioner, as per Regulation 7(1) of the National Council for Teacher Education regulations. Since there was a fundamental defect existing at the time of the submission of the application, the second respondent was right in rejecting the same, without affording an opportunity to the petitioner to rectify such a defect. In such view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to accept the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. As such, the writ petition is devoid of merits. Hence, it stands dismissed. No costs.
csh To
1.The National Council for Teacher Education, Rep. by its Member Secretary, Hans Bhavan, Wing-II, New Delhi.
2.The Regional Director, National Council for Teacher Education, Southern Regional Committee, First Floor, C.S.D.Complex, H.M.T.Township, Bangalore 31