IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S. DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.11365/2018 (EDN/REG-P) BETWEEN:
M/s. VATSALYA COLLEGE OF EDUCATION, SRI NATARAJA PRATHISTANA SRI HOSAMAT, NO.140, SHANKARMUTT ROAD, MYSORE – 570 004 REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL … PETITIONER (BY SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1 NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION HANS BHAVAN, WING 2, I, BAHADUR SHAFAR MARG NEW DELHI – 110 002 REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 2 SOUTHERN REGIONAL COMMITTEE NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION, 1ST FLOOR, CSD BUILDING, HMT POST, BANGALORE – 560 031 REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN 3 MYSORE UNIVERSITY CRAFFORD BHAVAN MYSORE – 570 005 REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M. VINOD KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; SRI. MANMOHAN P.N., ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-L THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 27.02.2018, VIDE NO.F. NO.89- 552/2013 APPEAL/1ST MTG-2018/1ST AND 2ND FEB, 2018/63490 AND CONFIRM ORDERS PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 07.06.2013 NO.F. NO.AOPSO4077/B.ED./KA/2013-14/52167, [ANNEXURE-B].
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Petitioner-College is calling in question the order dated 27.02.2018 at Annexure-L passed in its appeal against the order dated 7.6.2013 whereby recognition granted to the petitioner-College was withdrawn.
2. The brief fact matrix of the case is:
Petitioner is an educational institution which was granted recognition on 24.12.2005 by the 2nd respondent- NCTE subject to certain conditions, one of them relating to requirement of own building. The recognition came to be rescinded on the ground that the land & building in question measured less than what is prescribed by the NCTE Regulations. The appeal against the same having gone in vain, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. After service of notice, respondents have entered appearance through their counsel have filed Statement of Objections opposing the writ petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that shorn off all unnecessary pleadings of both the sides, if a fresh spot inspection is undertaken by the respondents, the truth as to the correct measurement would be revealed, especially in view of rectification Deed dated 15.11.2017 which would put the issue at rest. The learned panel counsel for the respondents initially having opposed the writ petition now fairly submits that this innocuous arrangement is agreeable, provided petitioner bears the expenses. The stand of the parties is fair and reasonable.
5. In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds in part; the impugned orders dated 07.06.2013 at Annexure-B and 27.02.2018 at Annexure-L stand quashed by Certiorari; a Writ of Mandamus issues to the respondents to undertake a fresh spot inspection with the participation of the petitioner for ascertaining the dimension of the property in question, within a period of three months.
Petitioner-College shall credit a sum of Rs.25,000/- within two weeks with the 2nd respondent as being the likely expenses for the mandated exercise.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE AN/-