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
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.
