The court emphasized the importance of the NRC's statutory obligation and the need for immediate measures to enforce compliance with regulations, leading to the setting aside of the NRC's decision and issuance of directions for restoration and re-inspection.

ORDER

Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J. (Oral)--The petitioner-institution, vide the instant writ petition seeks to challenge the minutes of meeting dated 10.08.2023 (407th meeting) of the Northern Regional Committee (hereinafter referred to as `NRC'), whereby, the NRC has decided to issue a letter to the affiliating body seeking information as to on what basis the concerned institution was treated to be recognized. The NRC has also decided that the petitioner-institution is not a recognized institution for B.Ed course from 23.07.2009.

2. The facts of the case would show that the NRC vide order dated 20.10.2003 had granted recognition to the petitioner-institution for B.Ed. course of one year duration from the Academic Session 2003-04 with annual intake of 100 students.

3. It appears that vide withdrawal order dated 23.07.2009, the NRC has decided to withdraw the recognition on the ground that the reply to the show cause notice was not found satisfactory.

4. The order of withdrawal dated 23.07.2009 came to be challenged by the petitioner-institution in a statutory appeal under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 before the Appellate Committee.

5. The Appellate Committee vide order dated 11.09.2009 decided to remit the matter back to the NRC with a direction to the petitioner-institution to deposit a sum of Rs.40,000/- with further directions to the NRC to conduct the inspection and to take a final decision.

6. The petitioner-institution appears to have sent a demand draft for a sum of Rs.40,000/- in favour of the Regional Director, NCTE Jaipur vide communicate dated 15.12.2009.

7. It is also to be seen that the petitioner-institution thereafter continued to admit the students for the B.Ed. course till 2022.

8. As per the case of the petitioner-institution, various letters were made to the NRC for issuance of restoration order in terms of the order passed by the Appellate Committee, however, neither any reply to those requests were made nor any formal order of restoration was issued.

9. On 17.01.2022, the petitioner-institution appears to have submitted performance appraisal report with NCTE.

10. For the year 2023, when the name of the petitioner-institution was not shown at the official website to be a recognized institution, then the petitioner-institution on 20.05.2023 again requested the NRC to issue a restoration order.

11. It is thus seen that on 23.06.2023, the NRC required the petitioner-institution to submit its status for running B.Ed. course from the year 2009 onwards.

12. On 11.07.2023, the petitioner-institution appears to have submitted a reply to the letter dated 23.06.2023 explaining all circumstances, as have been noted hereinabove.

13. It is thereafter seen that on 10.08.2023 in terms of the impugned minutes of the meeting, the NRC has taken the impugned decision.

14. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents by way of filing the counter affidavit supports the action taken by the NRC. She submits that after passing of the order dated 11.09.2009, the NRC did not receive any demand draft of Rs.40,000/- and since the order of the Appellate Committee was a conditional one and in the absence of the conditions being fulfilled, there was no inspection carried out by the NRC.

15. She, therefore, submits that if the conditions of the order passed by the Appellate Committee are not fulfilled, the petitioner-institution is not entitled for any relief. She also submits that from the year 2009 onwards, there is no formal order of recognition; hence, the petitioner-institution was not entitled to operate the concerned course.

16. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record.

17. The relevant portion of order dated 11.09.2009 passed by the Appellate Committee reads as under:

"AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the university de-affiliated the college for two years and later on it caused inspection on 16.12.07 and accorded permanent aff