2003 Supreme(SC) 590

2003(2) Supreme 166
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Karnataka High Court)
S. Rajendra Babu, D.M. Dharmadhikari & G.P. Mathur, JJ.
St. Johns Teachers Training Institute -Appellant
versus
Regional Director, National Council for Teacher Education & Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1068 of 2003
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 2421 of 2001
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 1069-1097 of 2003
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 10351/2002, 10434/2002, 10760/2001, 10804-10805/2001, 10870/2001, 1386/2002, 1387/2002, 17761/2001, 17762/2001, 20419-20421/2002, 20818-20819/2002, 20879/2002, 20904-20905/2002, 20906-20907/2002, 20922/2001, 20924/2001, 20925/2001, 20927/2001, 21207/2002, 21208/2002, 2702/2001, 3972/2002, 3974/2002)
W.P. (C) Nos. 522, 553, 554, 555, 556, 557, 558, 559, 562, 566, 591, 592, 593, 594, 595, 596, 598, 599, 602, 613, 614 and 615 of 2002
And
Civil Appeal Nos. 1098-1109 of 2003
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 6996/2002, 7010/2002, 7046/2002, 7178/2001, 7783/2002, 8962/2002, 9812/2001, 24829-24830/2002, 28/2003,           15/2003 and 501/2003)
Decided on 7-2-2003
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : K. Subramanian, L. Nageshwar Rao, Sr. Advocates, Mahesh Agarwal, Rishi Agarwal, Rabu Manohar, E.C. Agrawala, K.V. Viswanathan, Kunwar Ajit Mohan Singh, K.V. Venkataraman, P. Chandrasekaran, Arvind Nayar, Ms. Promila, T. Raja, Ms. Kiran Suri, B. Partha Sarthy, S. Nanda Kumar, V. Vijayan, Yogesh Khanna and Rakesh K. Sharma, Advocates.
For the Respondents : S. Balakrishna, M.N. Krishnamani, Sr. Advocates, Mrs. Revathy Raghavan, T.V. Ratnam, Radha Shyam Jena, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Ms. Anu Dubey, Ms. Rachna Srivastava, Ms. Subhashini, Mrs. V.D. Khanna, S.K. Shandilya, V.G. Pragasam, R.K. Singh, K.V. Mohan, Ms. Deepa Rai, Ashok Mathur, P.N. Ramalingam, Krishna Sarma, Ms. Asha G. Nair, V.K. Sidatharan, Advocate for M/s. Corporate Law Group, Gopal Singh, A. Mariarputham, Ms. Aruna Mathur, Satinder S. Gulati, Kamaldeep Gulati, Sanjay R. Hegde and Satya Mitra, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
Regulations 5(e) and (f) framed by National Council for Teachers Education are intra vires the provisions of National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993.

Headnote:National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993-Sections 14 and 32 -National Council for Teacher Education (application for recognition, the manner of submission, determination of conditions for recognition of institutions and permission to start new course or training) Regulation, 1995-Regulations 5(e) and (f) and 8-Manner of making application and conditions for recognition-Whether intra vires the provisions of Act? (Yes)-Requirement of obtaining No Objection Certificate (NOC) from State Government under Regulations whether ultra vires and invalid? (No)-Whether regulations 5(e) and 5(f) suffer from excessive delegation? (No) (see paras 12 to 15)-Are there guide lines for the State Governments regarding grant of a NOC? (Yes)-Whether guidelines are arbitrary? (No)-Whether regulations conform to the provisions of Act? (Yes)-Whether provision be made for time bound decision on application for NOC? (Yes)-Appeals and writ petitions dismissed.

       Held : The institution may be located in the interior of the district in a far away State. The Regional Committee cannot perform such herculean task and it has to necessarily depend upon some other agency or body for obtaining necessary information. It is for this reason that the assistance of the State Government or Union Territory in which that institution is located is taken by the Regional Committee and this is achieved by making a provision in Regulations 5(e) and (f) that the application made by institution for grant of recognition has to be accompanied with a NOC from the concerned State or Union Territory. The impugned Regulations in fact facilitate the job of the Regional Committees in discharging their responsibilities. (Para 15)

       The contention that there are no guidelines for the State Governments regarding grant of a NOC and consequently the State Governments may refuse to grant a NOC on wholly irrelevant considerations is without substance. (Para 16)

       The guidelines clearly pertain to the matters enumerated in sub-section (3) of Section 14 of the Act which have to be taken into consideration by the Regional Committee while considering the application for granting recognition to an institution which wants to start a course for training in teacher education. The guidelines have also direct nexus to the object of the Act namely, planned and coordinated development of teacher education system and proper maintenance of norms and standards. It cannot, therefore, be urged that the power conferred on the State Government or Union Territory, while considering an application for grant of a NOC, is an arbitrary or unchanelled power. The State Government or the Union Territory has to necessarily confine itself to the guidelines issued by the Council while considering the application for grant of a NOC. In case the State Government does not take into consideration the relevant factors enumerated in Sub-section (3) of Section 14 of the Act and the guidelines issued by the Council or takes into consideration factors which are not relevant and rejects the application for grant of a NOC, it will be open to the institution concerned to challenge the same in accordance with law. But, that by itself, cannot be a ground to hold that the Regulations which require a NOC from the State Government or the Union Territory are ultra vires or invalid. (Para 17)

       The Regulations also conform to the provisions of the Act and are not in excess of the authority of the Council as no essential legislative function has been delegated to the State Government. Learned counsel for the appellant has strongly urged that in some cases the State Government has sat over the matter for very long period without taking any decision either to grant a NOC or declining to grant the same and on account of this inaction of the State Government the application moved by the institutions before the Regional Committee was not even registered for consideration and thereby the right of the appellants to establish an institution for teachers training or starting a course in teacher education was completely defeated. There can be no manner of doubt that the State Government must take a decision on the application moved by an institution for grant of a NOC within a reasonable time. If the State Government does not take a decision within a reasonable time it will obviously defeat the right of an institution to have its application considered by the Regional Committee. It will therefore be proper that the Council frames appropriate Regulations fixing the time limit within which a decision should be taken by the State Government on the application moved by an institution for grant of a NOC. In the present cases, we are of the opinion that till such Regulations are made the decision should be taken by the State Governments within four months, failing which it shall be deemed that the NOC has been granted. (Paras 20 and 21)

       Held consequently : For the reasons mentioned above, we are of the opinion that the impugned Regulations are perfectly valid and intra vires the Act. The appeals and writ petitions are consequently dismissed. It is however directed that the State Governments/Union Territories shall pass final order on the applications which are pending before it for grant of a NOC within four months of the presentation of certified copy of this order, failing which it will be deemed that a NOC has been granted. (Para 22)