Judgment:
(Prayer: This Writ Petition Is Filed Under Articles 226 And 227 Of The Constitution Of India With A Prayer To Quash The Withdrawal Order Dated 6.12.2013 Passed By The Respondent And Vide Annex-J.)
1. Petitioner is before this Court assailing the withdrawal order dated 06.12.2013 impugned at Annexure J to the petition.
2. The petitioner, an educational institution by name Prasanna College of Education, Ujire, Beltangady taluk, Dakshina Kannada had started the B.Ed. course during the academic sessions 2004-05 with the intake of 100 students. Similarly D.Ed. Course has also been commenced. Among other requirements, one of the conditions was also that the petitioner institution should possess their own building. The respondent had issued a show cause notice stating that the petitioner has not complied with the said requirement. The petitioner had replied to the same seeking to justify their action and to indicate that they are in possession of an appropriate building as required under the Regulations. The respondent has subsequently passed the withdrawal order dated 06.12.2013 by which the recognition granted for D.Ed. course with annual intake of 50 students is withdrawn with effect from the academic year 2014-15. The petitioner claiming to be aggrieved by the same, is before this Court.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent would at the outset point out, that the petitioner has an alternate remedy of appeal under Section 18 of the NCTE Act and as such the writ petition assailing the order of withdrawal is not maintainable. It is therefore contended, that the petitioner should be relegated to the appellate remedy. Further, effort is also made to sustain the withdrawal order.
4. With regard to the position that in a normal circumstance, when an appeal is provided as an alternate remedy under the Statute, the appropriate course for this Court is to relegate the party concerned to exhaust the said remedy there can be no quarrel. However, in the instant facts it is to be noticed that though the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner indicating that they did not possess their own building, the operative portion of the impugned order dated 06.12.2013 indicates the reason for withdrawal which states that the petitioner has not produced the approved plan from the competent authority and that the institution has not submitted the list of staff approved by the affiliating University. To the said extent the learned counsel for the petitioner relies on Annexure- C series to point out that the affiliating University had approved the staff list. Further, Annexure-D is referred to indicate that the plan is approved by the competent authority.
5. In a circumstance where the proceedings was initiated on the basis that the petitioner does not possess their own building and since the withdrawal order is based on the other two criteria as noticed above, as also prima facie when it is shown that the documents were available but the respondent has not taken into consideration the same, in the present facts I am of the opinion, that rather than relegating the petitioner to the appellate remedy it would be appropriate to direct the respondent to reconsider the matter after taking note of the documents relied on by the petitioner and thereafter arrive at a conclusion. This is also for the reason, that if the respondent takes an appropriate decision in the matter there would be no confusion with regard to the admission to be made for the academic year 2014-15 and in such event it would be in the interest of all parties concerned.
6. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on merits, merely taking note of the reasons indicated in the impugned order and the documents relied on by the petitioner, the order impugned dated 06.12.2003 is quashed. The matter is remitted to the respondent to take note of the documents submitted by the petitioner and arrive at a fresh conclusion in the matter. The petitioner is also granted liberty to file additional documents, if any, with the respondent.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.