IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
Writ Petition No. 50 (MS) of 2010
Mussoorie Institute of Education
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others
…Petitioner
…Respondents
Shri K.H. Gupta, Advocate with Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. M.A. Khan, brief holder for the respondent no. 1.
Mr. N.P. Sah, Advocate vice Mr. J.P. Joshi, Advocate for respondent no. 2.
Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Advocate for respondent no. 3 and 4.
Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J.
Dated: January 15, 2010
(Urgency Application No. 215 of 2010)
Heard.
Urgency application is allowed.
WPMS No. 50 of 2010
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Present petition has been filed by the petitionerinstitution
for quashing the decision/order taken by the
Northern Regional Committee of National Council for
Teacher’s Education in its 146 th meeting, held between 5 th to
7 th August 2009 at Sl. No. 12, Agenda No. 06 and also for
quashing the order-dated 05.01.2010 passed by the
respondent no. 4 by which the appeal of the petitioner has
been rejected.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
before the Court that the respondents should have considered
the case independently on its own merit but impugned orders
are absolutely silent about the contravention of the provision
of the Act by the petitioner institution and as such no order,
withdrawing the recognition, could have been passed against
the petitioner institution under Section 17 of NCTE ACT, 1993.

2
He further submitted that at the time of granting additional
intake of 100 seats of B. Ed. course to the petitioner
institution, the committee of visiting team was completely
satisfied with infrastructure and instructional facilities of
petitioner institution but all of sudden the NCTE withdrew
recognition of the petitioner institution on the ground of some
deficiencies, which is unreasonable and illegal. Deficiencies, if
existed, could have been removed within very short span of
time. The appellate authority also did not consider these
things and dismissed the appeal of the petitioner.
Prima facie, this Court is satisfied with the
arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the respondents prays for and
is granted four weeks’ time to file counter affidavit.
1543 (MS) of 2009.
List on 22 nd February 2010 alongwith WPMS No.
Also heard on stay application.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, as an
interim measure, it is directed that till the next date of listing,
operation of the order-dated 05.01.2010 passed by the
respondent no. 4 shall remain stayed.
(V.K. Bist, J.)
Vacation Judge
Shiv 15.01.2010