A.M. Khanwilkar, CJ.

1. Heard counsel for the parties.

2. As short question is involved, petitions are taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent. Counsel for the respondents waive notice for final disposal.

3. Common question raised in both these petitions is : whether, in terms of Regulation 5 read with 7(1) of the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as Regulations of 2014), an application submitted by the Institution for grant of recognition to the National Council for Teacher Education (hereinafter referred to as Council or as NCTE), not accompanied with the No Objection Certificate (hereinafter referred to as NOC for the sake of brevity) issued by the concerned affiliating body, can be treated as complete and valid application; and the sequel therefor

4. The petitioners are relying on the decisions of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.10946 and 19397 of 2015 decided on 14.1.2016, W.P. No.20670 of 2015 decided on 4.2.2016, W.P. No.12765 of 2015 decided on 17.2.2016,W.P. Nos.2136, 2141 and 2363 of 2016 decided on 8.2.2016, W.P. Nos.3179 and 3252 of 2016 decided on 19.2.2016 and lastly W.P. No.2451 of 2016 decided on 25.2.2016, to buttress the argument that non-submission of such NOC issued by the concerned affiliating body is no impediment for the respondent/Council (NCTE) to process the application for grant of recognition.

5. The petitioners may be justified in relying on the decisions in W.P. No.12765 of 2015, W.P. Nos.3179 & 3252 of 2016 and W.P. No.2451 of 2016 decided on 17.2.2016, 19.2.2016 and 25.2.2016 respectively (hereinafter referred to as the said decisions of this Court), which have accepted the argument of the Institution that such NOC from the concerned affiliating body need not be insisted by the Council (NCTE) to process the application for grant of recognition submitted by the Institution within the prescribed time. However, on a closer scrutiny of the said decisions of this Court, it is noticed that the same are passed on the basis of concession given by the Advocate for the respondent/Council (NCTE).

6. In the present petitions, however, the respondent/Board (affiliating body), has taken a firm stand that non-filing of NOC issued by the affiliating body would render such application submitted by the Institution incomplete and invalid and be treated as rejected. As a result, we have been called upon to examine this contention.

7. At the outset, we may observe that the said decisions of this Court cannot be treated as a binding precedent. For, the same were based on concession and the Court was not called upon to examine the relevant governing provisions concerning the matter in issue.

8. Before we analyse the relevant provisions, we deem it appropriate to deal with the said three decisions of this Court pressed into service by the petitioner. In W.P. No.12765 of 2015, no doubt, the Court noticed the argument of the petitioner that NOC issued by the affiliating body need not be insisted, but the Court did not examine the contention further, in view of the statement made by the Advocate for the Respondent No.3(NCTE) that the legal position was answered against the said respondent by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya & others, (2006) 9 SCC 1; and also the decisions of this High Court in W.P. No.10946/2015 dated 14.1.2016 and W.P. No.20670/2015 dated 4.2.2016. However, in the matter before the Supreme Court and the said two decisions of this Court dated 14.1.2016 and 4.2.2016 respectively, the issue was discussed in the context of requirement to file NOC of the State Government and not of the affiliating body. In other words, the Court did not examine the contention which has now been specifically raised by the respondent/Board (affiliating body).

9. In the second set of writ petitions (W.P. Nos.2136, 2141 and 2363 all of 2016) decided on 8.2.20