1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition and has called in question tenability of an order dated 24.02.2014 Annexure-P9 passed by the Western
Regional Committee of the National Council for Teachers Education granting approval and recognition to Respondent No.6 Shri Jagat Narayan
College under Section 14(1) of the NCTE Act, 1993 to establish a B.Ed. College in the area with intake capacity as indicated in the order
Annexure-P9.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that in accordance with the provisions of N.C.T.E Regulation, Norms and Procedures, statutory in nature framed,
the requirement for grant of recognition under Section 14 for establishing an Educational Institute is contemplated and one of the requirement is
with regard to existence of a land and building in favour of the institute or the society, which has sought for permission. It is said that the Institute of
Respondent No.6 sought permission before the Council to start the institute based on their right to certain land comprising of Khasra Nos.1095,
1097/2 & 640/1/2 situated in the area in question. Based on the aforesaid assertions made by Respondent No.6, it is said that the recognition is
granted.
3. However, petitioner invites our attention to a judgment and order passed by the First Additional District Judge-Tikamgarh in Civil Appeal
No.70A/2009 (Devendra Kumar & Ors. Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors.) to say that Manoj Kumar & Ors. claiming to be directors and office bearers
of the society, which runs Shri Jagat Narayan College has indicated before the National Council of Teachers'' Education that the land and property
comprising of the aforesaid Khasra Nos. belongs to them/ the Institute.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that in the civil suit in question vide a judgment Annexure-P1, the learned Court on 4th of February, 2011 has
quashed the sale-deed by which, the right to the property was transferred in the name of Manoj Kumar & Ors. and the declaration and decree has
been passed to say that it is the petitioner Devendra Kumar, who has the right to the property. It is argued by Shri K.C.Ghildiyal, learned counsel
that if permission is granted to Respondent No.6 to establish the institute in the land in question, then the legal right of the petitioner to the land
would be adversely effected and he would be deprived of his right to enjoy the land.
5. Placing reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of the Ghulam Qadir Vs. Special Tribunal and Others, , Shri Ghildiyal
answered an objection raised on the last date of hearing with regard to locus standi of the petitioner to challenge the recognition granted to
Respondent No.6. It is the case of the petitioner represented by Shri Ghildiyal that if Respondent No.6/ Institute is permitted to construct the
building in the land in question, then the petitioner''s right to the land would be adversely effected and as Respondent No.6 has obtained the
recognition by playing a fraud and misrepresentation with regard to the land in question, the petitioner, being an aggrieved person, has a right to file
this writ petition.
6. Respondents initially took a legal objection with regard to locus standi to challenge the action but subsequently now in the light of the
submissions made by Shri Ghildiyal, it is pointed that even otherwise, the petitioner has a right to challenge the recognition granted under Section
18 of the NCTE Act before the appellate authority, if petitioner is an aggrieved person, therefore, interference into all these disputed questions of
fact in the writ petition is not called for.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and we find that the petitioner, even though, may not be directly involved in the matter of
functioning and running of the educational institute, but prima-facie, from the documents available on record, particularly, the judgments of the
Court in the suits pertaining to the same land, certain decrees are available in favour of the petitioner. That being so, if the principles applied and
laid down in the case of Ghulam Qadir (supra) and the observations in Paragraph-36 are taken note of, it would be clear that the petitioner cannot
be said to be stranger to the entire event, as he has certain right to the property in question. If any building is permitted to be constructed in the said
property, right of the petitioner to the property in question would be adversely effected and infact, it would amount to non-suiting of the petitioner
and if that be so, petitioner has a locus standi to challenge the recognition granted.
8. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that in case, if the council permits the Respondent No.6 to construct the building and institute in the
land in question, there may be serious effect on the right of the petitioner and as the recognition is granted without taking note of and adverting to
consider all these questions, inspite of the fact that the petitioner has been objecting to the same before the Council, its a fit case, where the matter
should be remanded back to the Council for reconsideration.
9. Keeping in view the aforesaid, we issue following directions :
�On the petitioner''s filing a certified copy of this order along with relevant documents before the Western Regional Committee, National Council
for Teachers Education, Bhopal, the Committee, if permissible under law, shall reconsider the matter and after hearing Respondent No.6 in detail
with regard to the objection of the petitioner, decide the question of recognition/ approval granted under Section 14 afresh in accordance with law.
However, in case, the Council feels that they have no right for such reconsideration, then they shall inform the petitioner immediately within 15
days'' of the presentation of objection and if such an information is given, the petitioner is granted liberty to file an appeal against the aforesaid
recognition before the competent appellate authority within a period of 15 days'' thereof and the appellate authority is directed to decide the appeal
in accordance with law within a period of 45 days'' thereof after hearing all concerned particularly, Respondent No.6 and their representatives.
We may clarify that we are remanding the matter back with the aforesaid direction, as Shri K.K.Singh, learned counsel who represented the
Council made a objection before us to say that an alternate statutory remedy of an appeal under Section 18 is available, therefore, when a right of
appeal is available before the Council itself, we are of the considered view that it can be more appropriately dealt with by the appellate authority.
We may further clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter with regard to the claim to the land in question between
the petitioner and Respondent No.6. We have only made an observation for the purpose of prima-facie assessing the fact so as to come to the
conclusion as to whether we should interfere in the matter or not. Accordingly, our assessment with regard to right to the property is prima- facie in
nature and the authorities and the Council are free to proceed in the matter after hearing all concerned without being influenced by any observation
made by us with regard to property in question.�
10. With the aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules.
