IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that delay and laches bar the relief sought under Article 226, emphasizing that mere representation does not extend limitation periods.

ORDER :

The present Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India and the relief sought for in both the Writ Petitions is same and against the same respondents and the relief sought in W.P. No.23233 of 2024 is as follows:

…pleased to issue an appropriate writ more in the nature of Wit of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not considering the representation of the Petitioner institution dated 30.09.2024 and not restoring the recognition of the Petitioner institution which is withdrawn vide order F.SRO/NCTE/APSO2651/ B.Ed/AP/2019/13070-3076, dated 09.12.2019, on the ground that petitioner did not offered its explanation for the first and final show cause notices issued by the 2nd respondent as being arbitrary, illegal, unwarranted and violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to consider the representation of the Petitioner institution and issue such other writ or order or direction as deemed fit and proper…

2. The 2nd respondent i.e. the National Council for Teacher Education (Southern Regional Committee) has withdrawn the recognition of the petitioner-institution vide order F.SRO/NCTE/APSO2651/B.Ed/AP/2019/ 13070-3076, dated 09.12.2019. Before withdrawing the recognition, the 2nd respondent has issued show cause notice dated 04.02.2019 raising certain deficiencies and invited/called for explanation. The petitioner-institution has not acted upon the said show-cause notice. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent has issued final show-cause notice dated 10.10.2019 to the petitioner-institution. Even for the 2nd show cause notice, the petitioner-institution has not responded. Therefore, the 2nd respondent has derecognized the approval which was given to the petitioner-institution vide orders dated 23.02.2005.

3. Be that as it may, the petitioner-institution submitted a representation dated 30.09.2024, seeking restoration of recognition granted earlier to the petitioner-institution. The said representation was neither considered, nor rejected by the 2nd respondent. The inaction of the second respondent in addressing the representation is challenged in the writ petition, which seeks a direction for the respondents to examine and dispose of the representation. It is noted that in a similar situation, this Court, via order dated 04.11.2023 in W.P. No. 2897 of 2023, directed the second respondent to review the representation and communicate the decision to the concerned party. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner requests this Court to issue a similar directive in the present writ petition. Additionally, the counsel submits that the petitioner was unable to respond to the preliminary and final show cause notices due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

4. Heard, Sri Srivijay Mathukumalli, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Sri Vennam Hemanth Kumar, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would reiterate the contentions stated above and prayed to allow the Writ Petition and to direct the 2nd respondent to examine and pass appropriate orders on the representation dated 30.09.2024.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the 2ndrespondent would submit that the derecognition order was passed on 09.12.2019 and as on the date of passing of the de-recognition, the Covid- 19 pandemic had not yet begun and the lockdown has been lifted in the entire country and returned to normalcy in the year 2021 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has extended the period of limitation from 15th March, 2020 to 14th March, 2021 with a grace period of 90 days. The counsel further stated that the petitioner did not approach the 2nd respondent before the pandemic or during the period of normalcy that followed. The present writ petition seeks to reconsider the case of the petitioner institution and withdraw the de-recognition order dated December 9, 2019. It is contended that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands, and