A valid show cause notice must detail allegations to ensure compliance with natural justice before withdrawing recognition of an institution.

JUDGMENT :

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J

1. By way of present petition, the petitioner has assailed the impugned decision taken by the Northern Regional Committee (NRC) in its 442^nd meeting held on 11^th and 12^th June, 2025 whereby the recognition granted to the petitioner has been withdrawn.

2. Mr. Sanjay Sharawat, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that a decision of withdrawal of recognition must be preceded by a show cause notice in terms of first proviso to Section 17(1) of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (herein referred as the Act).

3. He submits that in the present case, no such show cause notice has been given. Inviting attention of the Court to the first show cause notice dated 10.01.2025, he submits that the same is only a communication and cannot be construed as show cause notice in terms of first proviso to Section 17(1) of the NCTE Act, inasmuch as by way of purported show cause notice, the petitioner has only been asked to submit certain documents, and no allegation has been made, which the petitioner could have responded.

4. Referring to impugned order, Mr. Sharawat submits that recognition has been withdrawn by making an allegation that the petitioner has made a fake corrigendum order and increased its intake from 50 to 100 students for B.Ed. course. It has also alleged that petitioner made a fake recognition order no. F.No. NRC / NCTE / Recognition/ B.Ed. /2016/150079-88 dated 08.06.2016, for two units of 50 seats each.

5. He contends that the allegations of forgery on which the decision of withdrawal of recognition is predicated are serious in nature but does not find mention in the Show Cause Notice, therefore, the petitioner had no opportunity, leave alone, meaningful opportunity to meet the said allegation. 6. Mr. Sharawat further invites attention of the Court to the print-out of screenshot of the relevant page from the official website of NCTE annexed as Annexure P-11, which pertains to the NRC’s recognised institutions in Uttar Pradesh where name of petitioner finds mention. He submits that the order dated 08.06.2016 which is alleged by NCTE to be fake or forged is still available on the official website of the NCTE and if the download button on the said page is clicked, the same leads to the alleged fake order dated 08.06.2016.

7. Per contra, Mr. Hardik Rupal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent/NCTE invites attention of the Court to letter dated 27.04.2023, which has been sent by the NCTE to an official of the petitioner, pointing out that corrigendum in respect of increase of intake from 50 students to 100 students was never issued to the petitioner by NCTE.

8. He further submits that the corrigendum which is part of Annexure A (colly) to the short affidavit filed by respondent/NCTE, was supplied by the petitioner alongwith its reply to the show cause notice dated 10.01.2025. He submits that the said corrigendum has never originated from the respondent/NCTE and is a fake document.

9. Mr. Rupal further invites attention of the Court to Annexure P-7, which is a recognition order bearing File No. NRC/NCTE/Recognition/ B.Ed./2016/150079-88 dated 08.06.2016 to contend that this recognition order was issued by the NCTE in respect of the petitioner only for one unit of 50 seats, whereas Annexure P-11 which is another recognition order dated 08.06.2016 placed on record alongwith the writ petition, though bears the same file number and date, purports to be a recognition order for two units of 50 seats. He submits that the latter recognition order is apparently a forged docu