An appeal under the NCTE Act must be filed within the prescribed period, and unreasonable delays without sufficient cause warrant dismissal.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

1. Notice. Mr. Virbahadur Verma, learned Central Government Counsel and Ms. Ranjana Pathania, learned counsel, vice Ms. Archana Dutt, learned counsel, accept notice on behalf of respondents No. 1, 2 and No.3, respectively.

2. By way of this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged order 03.10.2024 (Annexure P-8), passed by theAppellate Authority, in terms whereof, the appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, against withdrawal order dated 23.12.2012, has been rejected by assigning the following reasons:-

“The Appeal Committee during the on-line hearing held on 19.09.2024 viz a viz the documents submitted by the Appellant alongwith Appeal report and submission made therein noted that the NRC had withdrawn the recognition of the appellant institution vide order dated 29.12.2012 against which the appellant institution has preferred an appeal dated 07.08.2024. The Appeal Committee observed that the Appeal suffers from enormous delay of 12 years which is unreasonable and without any proper justification. The appellant institution has also failed to show any sufficient cause for the enormous delay. Hence, as per the extant Rules & Regulation of the NCTE, the Appeal Committee decided not to condone delay without any reasonable cause. As such, it is a fit case for non-admission of the Appeal on ground of delay and laches.

Noting and submission and verbal arguments advanced during the online hearing. the Appeal Committee of the Council decided that the present Appeal is not admitted, and withdrawal dated 29.12.2012 issued by NRC is confirmed.”

3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents and having perused the Writ Petition as well as documents appended therewith, this Court does not finds any infirmity in the appellate order, in terms whereof, the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed on the ground of “enormous delay.”

4. The withdrawal order, which was assailed by way of an appeal after 12 years, was passed on 23.12.2012. Record demonstrates that the petitioner earlier preferred a Writ Petition against the said order, which, as informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, was dismissed. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred Letters Patent Appeal against the order passed in the Writ Petition i.e. LPA No. 225 of 2014, which was decided on 22.12.2016, in terms of Annexure P-4, in the following terms:-

“Accordingly, the LPA is disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to the appellant to file fresh application before respondents No. 1 and 2 within four weeks from today and respondents No. 1 and 2 to examine the same and pass appropriate orders, as per the Rules, occupying the field within four weeks thereafter. Pending applications, if any also stand disposed of. Dasti copy.”

5. However, the petitioner did not file any application within four weeks as from 22.12.2016, in terms of the liberty granted by the Hon’ble Division Bench. The petitioner, in fact, approached the Court by way of a miscellaneous application in the decided Letters Patent Appeal and prayed for grant of extension to file the representation, which application was allowed vide Annexure P-5, dated 03.08.2017, by granting further four weeks’ time to the petitioner to file representation on03.08.2017, as per Annexure P-4.

6. Again, no representation was filed by the petitioner and the petitioner ultimately filed the appeal (Annexure P-7), in the year 2024.

7. As per Section 18 of the NCTE Act, any person aggrieved by an order under Section 14 or 15 or Section 17 of the Act, may prefer an Appeal to the Council within such period as may be prescribed. This section further prescribes that no Appeal shall be admitted, if it is preferred after the expiry of the period prescribed therein, however, an Appeal may be admitted after the expiry of the period prescribed, if the appellant satisfies the Council that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the Appeal within