IMPORTANT POINT
Sections 13 and 17 should be construed harmoniously.

Judgment :-

R.M. LODHA, J.

Delay condoned in filing special leave petitions.

2. Interlocutory application for permission to delete respondent Nos. 3 and 4 from the array of parties in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 12815 of 2011 is allowed at the risk of the petitioner.

3. Leave granted.

4. Of these 22 Appeals, 9 arise from the judgment of the Delhi High Court and 13 from the different judgments of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. 13 Appeals arising from the judgments of the Madhya Pradesh High Court have been preferred by the National Council for Teacher Education (for short, 'NCTE' or 'Council') and the concerned Regional Committee. The 9 Appeals arising from the judgment of the Delhi High Court have been filed by various institutions.

5. In these Appeals, the common question for consideration is, where an action is contemplated against recognised institution under Section 17(1) of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, (for short, 'the 1993 Act') by the Regional Committee and inspection of such recognised institution is found necessary, whether such inspection must proceed under Section 13 of the 1993 Act or independent of Section 13, the Regional Committee is empowered to carry out inspection ?

6. The Madhya Pradesh High Court has taken the view that it is imperative on the part of the Council to issue notice under Section 13 of the 1993 Act to the recognised institution and, if on inspection under Section 13, contraventions are found, then a notice needs to be given by the Council to the concerned recognised institution pointing out to it the deficiencies noticed during inspection and, if the institution fails to remove the deficiencies so pointed out, the action under Section 17 may be taken.

7. The Delhi High Court has not accepted the above view of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. In the view of the Delhi High Court, the power of inspection by the Regional Committee is inherent in exercise of the power under Section 17 of the 1993 Act and it is not imperative on the part of the Council to issue notice under Section 13 of the 1993 Act before taking action under Section 17 of the 1993 Act.

8. Mr. Amitesh Kumar, learned counsel for the NCTE, stoutly defended the judgment of the Delhi High Court. He referred to Sections 13, 14, 15 and 17 of the 1993 Act and submitted that the provision of inspection under Section 13 is entirely different and the power of Regional Committee conferred under Section 17 with regard to withdrawal of recognition and the consequences for contravention of the provisions of the 1993 Act, Rules, Regulations, etc. is self-contained and not circumscribed by the provision of inspection by the Council provided in Section 13. He submitted that Regional Committee might not be able to discharge its functions under Section 17 appropriately if for exercise of such power the provision of Section 13 is read into Section 17.

9. Learned counsel for the NCTE also raised the grievance about the nature of direction given by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the impugned judgments.

10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the institutions supported the view of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. They submitted that the view of the Delhi High Court was not in conformity with the statutory scheme under the 1993 Act and the rules framed thereunder.

11. The 1993 Act was enacted by the Parliament to provide for the establishment of a National Council for Teacher Education with a view to achieving planned and co-ordinated development for the teacher education system throughout the country, the regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the teacher education system and for matters connected therewith. It came into force with effect from July 1, 1995.

12. Section 2 deals with definitions of the expressions used elsewhere in the 1993 Act. Section 2(c) defines “Council” as under :

“Section 2(c) “Council” means the National Council for Teacher Education established under sub-section (1) of sect