Rekha Palli ORDER
Rekha Palli, J.
1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 27th February, 2018, passed by respondent No. 1 as also the order dated 5th April, 2017, passed by respondent No. 2.
2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length, this Court had on 6th April, 2018, passed the following order:-
"Vide the present petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 27th February, 2018, passed by respondent No. 1 as also the order dated 5th April, 2017, passed by respondent No. 2, whereby the petitioner's application for grant of recognition, has been rejected on the ground that when the visiting team of respondent No. 2 proposed to visit the petitioner's Institute, the petitioner had, vide its letter dated 22nd April, 2016, requested the respondents not to conduct the inspection at that stage as the concerned Officers of the petitioner/Institute, were busy due to some family engagement.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that merely because the petitioner had requested for an extension which request was admittedly not answered by the respondents either in the negative or in the positive, the respondents could not, without carrying out any inspection whatsoever, reject the petitioner's application by treating the same to be in violation of Regulation 7(7) of the NCTE Regulations, 2014.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that even otherwise as per the Regulations, the respondents were enjoined to carry out the inspection within twenty days of its letter informing the petitioner about the proposed inspection and respondents having admittedly not carried out any inspection at that stage, cannot hold the same against the petitioner. He, further, submits that the Regulation 7(7) does not give a right to the respondents to reject the petitioner's application without carrying out any inspection, by treating the request for extension as a refusal for permitting inspection.
On the other hand, Ms. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondent submits that even though the respondents had not given any reply to the petitioner's extension letter, but contends that since the respondents had issued a show cause notice dated 17th December, 2016, to the petitioner/Institute, which notice the petitioner denies having received, it is apparent that the Committee had rejected the request of the petitioner/Institute for extension. It has been put to learned counsel for the respondent as to whether any letter or any communication was ever addressed to the petitioner informing the Institute that their request for extension had been rejected and whether the respondent had ever carried out inspection. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to take instructions.
At request, adjourned to 20th April, 2018."
3. Today Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondents submits that she has instructions to state that even though the respondents had not responded to the request letter made by the petitioner seeking extension, it was apparent that the respondents had rejected the petitioner's request by way of issuing show cause notice dated 17th December, 2016 to the petitioner. She, thus, contends that the respondents were justified in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner had refused inspection.
4. In view of the admitted position that no refusal letter had ever been sent by the respondent to the petitioner rejecting its request for extension of time for inspecting its premises, in my considered view, the respondents could not have held that the petitioner had refused inspection of its premises. In my considered opinion, in case the respondents were not inclined to accept the request of the petitioner for grant of extension of time for inspection of the premises of its Institute, they were well within their right to reject the pe........