Full Judgment Text
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision :- 25.05.2018.
+ W.P.(C) 5751/2018
SHRI RAM COLLEGE OF EDUCATION ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Sanjay Sherawat, Adv.
versus
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION & ANR
..... Respondent
Through Ms.Arunima Dwivedi, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
REKHA PALLI, J (ORAL)
1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner has impugned the
order dated 21.05.2018 passed by respondent no.2, whereby the
respondent no.2 had rejected its application for grant of recognition
for D.El.Ed course on the ground that the deficiencies, which were
pointed out to the petitioner vide the show-cause notice dated
15.03.2018, were removed only subsequently as the gift deed in
respect of the adjacent land was registered in favour of the petitioner
only on 27.03.2018.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the
impugned order was contemptuous as it overlooked the fact that
once the respondents had themselves assured this Court that the
petitioner’s application would be reconsidered by considering all
subsequent documents, there was no justification on the part of the
W.P.(C) 5751/2018 Page 1 of 4
respondent no.2 to ignore the aforesaid gift deed dated 27.03.2018.
He further submits that even otherwise this Court had in various
decisions held that any subsequent document, which is made
available to the respondents at the time of the consideration of the
petitioner’s application, the same ought to be considered by the
respondent before passing any final decision on the application.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner also places reliance on a
decision dated 19.02.2018 passed by Division Bench of this Court in
W.P.(C)No.1358/2018, wherein this Court had, in fact, come down
heavily on the respondents, for ignoring the settled legal position. It
may be appropriate to refer to para 24 of the aforesaid decision:-
“ 24. It is trite that the failure to abide by principles laid down
by a decision of the court is contumacious and would invite
action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the
authorities concerned. In the present case, despite the decisions
on the very issue upon which the objection has been raised qua
the petitioner, the earliest decision laid before us is the order
dated 13th July, 2010 passed in W.P.(C) 4094/2010 G.D.
Memorial Collage of Education v. NCT & Anr. We would be
justified in invoking proceedings under the Contempt of Court
Act against the respondents for failing to abide by the
principles of law laid down.”
4. On the other hand, Ms.Dwivedi, learned counsel for the
respondents defends the impugned order on the ground that since
this Court had not given any specific direction to the respondents to
consider the gift deed registered in favour of the petitioner, after the
date of the initial application, the respondent no.2 was justified in
W.P.(C) 5751/2018 Page 2 of 4
passing the impugned order.
5. Having considered the rival contentions of the parties, I am
of the view that impugned order dated 21.05.2018 is wholly
unsustainable and overlooks the fact that once this Court had, after
noticing the subsequent gift deed registered in favour of the
petitioner and had after quashing the rejection of petitioner’s
application, directed respondent no.2 to reconsider the petitioner’s
application in accordance with law, it was expected that the
respondent no.2 will take into account the settled legal position. It
was, therefore, incumbent upon the respondent to consider any
subsequent document submitted by the petitioner before re-
consideration of its application.
6. Thus, it is apparent that the respondent no.2 despite being
aware of the settled legal position, has failed to consider the gift
deed dated 27.03.2018 submitted by the petitioner and has
mechanically passed the impugned order reiterating its earlier stand.
Accordingly, the impugned order dated 21.05.2018 is set aside and
the matter is remanded back to the respondent no.2 with a direction
to reconsider the petitioner’s application by duly considering the gift
deed dated 27.03.2018 and decide the same within a period of 2
weeks by passing a reasoned and speaking order.
7. It is, however, directed that, in case, any meeting of the
respondent no.2 is held before two weeks, the petitioner’s case
would be considered in the said meeting of respondent no.2, itself.
W.P.(C) 5751/2018 Page 3 of 4
8. It is made clear that the petitioner’s application would not be
rejected on the ground that the said gift deed was registered after the
filing of the initial application by the petitioner.
9. Needless to say, in case, the petitioner is still aggrieved by
the decision taken by the respondent no.2, it will be open for the
petitioner to take legal recourse as permissible under law.
10. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
REKHA PALLI
(JUDGE)
MAY 25, 2018
sr
W.P.(C) 5751/2018 Page 4 of 4