IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 34003 OF 2025 (EDN-RES)

BETWEEN:

SAHIL COLLEGE OF EDUCATION A UNIT OF BIDAR VIDYA KENDRA SOCIETY REGG OFFICE AT SHANTINIKETAN EDUCATIONAL CAMPUS, CHIDRI ROAD, BIDAR - 585 403, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR VANI BAI D/O HAJYA NAIK AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. AKASH B. SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR Digitally signed by TEACHERS EDUCATION (NCTE SRC)

SHARADAVANI G-7, SECTOR-10, DWARKA, NEW DELHI - 110 075 B Location: High REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL DIRECTOR, Court of Karnataka SOUTHERN REGIONAL COMMITTEE.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M. VINOD KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENTS AND BE PLEASED TO I. QUASH THE ORDER WITHDRAWING RECOGNITION PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 17(1) OF THE NCTE ACT, 1993 DATED 20.01.2020 IN F SRO/NCTE/APSO

7378/BED/KA/2020/114098/4104 VIDE ANNX-A AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

ORAL ORDER

In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: "I. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the order withdrawing recognition passed by the Respondent under Section 17(1) of the NCTE Act, 1993 dated 20.01.2020 in F.SRO/NCTE/APSO 7378/BED /KA/2020/114098/4104, vide Annexure-

A II. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing Respondent to reconsider the representation dated 18.06.2025 seeking restoration of recognition granted to the Petitioner Institution, produced at Annexure-B III. Pass such other writs, orders, or directions as may be deemed just and necessary in the interest of justice and equity."

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause, the petitioner could not submit a reply to the show cause notice dated 05.02.2019 issued by the respondent, who proceeded to pass the impugned order withdrawing the recognition granted in favour of the petitioner. It is also submitted that due to various administrative reasons and ill health of the persons in-charge of the affairs of the petitioner's institution, the petitioner could not file appropriate appeal before the Appellate Authority challenging the impugned order and as such, the present petition may be disposed of condoning the delay by permitting the petitioner to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 18 of NCTE Act, 1993.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

5. Though several contentions have been urged by the petitioner in support of his claim, having regard to the specific assertion on the part of the petitioner that its inability and omission to submit a reply to the show cause notice as well as to prefer an appeal against the impugned order within the prescribed period was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this petition, reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to file an appropriate appeal before the Appellate Authority by issuing further directions in this regard.

6. In the result, I pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The petition is disposed of (ii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 before the appropriate Appellate Authority.

(iii) If the petitioner files such an appeal before the appropriate authority within a period of eight (8) weeks from today, the Appellate Authority shall condone the delay on the part of the petitioner in filing such an appeal and dispose off the appeal on merits and in acco