APHC010594292025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] TUESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 30978/2025 Between: 1. MVR INSTITUTE OF TEACHER TRAINING, REPRESENTED BY ITS CORRESPONDENT, SRI. M. VENKATA RAMANA REDDY K.NO. 50, PLOT NO. 19-9- 3E/5, TIRUPATI HEAD POST OFFICE, 19TH STREET, TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 517501, ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION TULLURU, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION, THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY SECRETARY (APPEAL) G-7, SECTOR-10, DWARKA, NEW DELHI-110075. 3. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION, SOUTHERN REGIONAL COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED 2 BY ITS REGIONAL DIRECTOR, G-7, SECTOR-10, DWARKA, NEW DELHI-110075 4. THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION VENKATADRI TOWERS, OPP DGP OFFICE BESIDE HAPPY RESORTS, ATMAKUR MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toPleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent, Appellate Authority, National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi in passing the impugned order dated 16-09-2025 in Appeal No. 89-160/E366530/2025, confirming the order dated 24-01- 2023 passed by the 3rd Respondent, Southern Regional Committee, NCTE, withdrawing the recognition granted to the Petitioner- Institution for conducting D.EI.Ed. course, as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India, and contrary to the settled principles of law governing condonation of delay and further ignoring particularly the medical disability and chronic ailment suffered by the Correspondent which caused the delay in filing the appeal justice and consequently set aside the impugned appellate order dated 16.09.2025, passed by the 2nd Respondent, and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Pleased to suspend the operation of the impugned order dated 16-09-2025 passed by the 2nd Respondent, Appellate Authority, NOTE, and direct the said 3 authority to reconsider the appeal afresh by affording due opportunity to the Petitioner, in the interest of justice. IA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Pleased to direct the Respondents 1 and 4 to forthwith grant affiliation to the Petitioner institution as per the proposals submitted by the Petitioner on 04- 12-2020, pending disposal of the writ petition, in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VIJAYA KUMAR SATA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION 2. GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION 3. VENNA HEMANTH KUMAR(CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) The Court made the following: 4 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY W.P.No.30978 of 2025 O R DE R: The present writ petition is filed questioning the order dated 16.09.2025 in Appeal No.89-160/ E366530/2025 confirming the order dated 24.01.2023 passed by the 3rd Respondent-Southern Regional Committee, NCTE, withdrawing the recognition granted to the Petitioner-Institution for conducting D.Ei.Ed., course as arbitrary and illegal. 2. The facts leading to filing of this case are as follows: The Petitioner is an Educational Institution offering D.Ei.Ed., course to the students and recognition was issued by the NCTE on 03.03.2015. While so, a show cause notice dated 18.08.2022 was issued under Section 17 of the NCTE Act, stating that the Petitioner had failed to submit GIS location of the Institution, status of the Performance Appraisal Report in compliance of notice dated 29.09.2021. The Petitioner-Institution was called upon to supply land documents, Land Use Certificate issued by the competent authority, non-encumbrance certificate, approved building plan, site plan etc. As there was no response 5 from the Petitioner, a final show cause notice dated 16.09.2022 was issued. Thereafter, the order withdrawing the recognition under Section 17 of the NCTE Act was passed on 24.01.2023. As the Petitioner was unaware of the show cause notices referred above and the consequential order, filed Appeal under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, before Respondent No.2 with a delay of more than two (2) years and the Appeal was dismissed on the ground of delay vide impugned order dated 16.09.2025. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed. 3. Counter affidavit was filed by Respondent Nos.2 and 3, wherein it is stated that the time frame for filing Appeal under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, is 90 days and the Appeal was filed with a delay of more than two (2) years. It is further stated that though the deponent contended that he was suffering chronic health problem (Prostate Disease since three years), no medical certificate was filed to substantiate the same. 4. Heard Sri Vijaya Kumar Sata, learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Higher Education. 6 5. The short question that falls for consideration is, whether there are reasonable grounds for this Court to interfere with the order of appeal. 6. In the affidavit filed in support of memo filed on 23.02.2026, it is stated that the deponent i.e. the Correspondent of Petitioner- Institution was suffering from chronic health problem which rendered him incapable to file an Appeal within the time. It is also submitted that the deponent’s wife also met with an accident in 2023 and was injured and could not actively attend to file Appeal within the time specified. Photographs and medical records were filed to support the plea of health condition. Apart from that, the delay in filing the Appeal against the order of de-recognition under Section 17 of the NCTE Act is only to the loss on Petitioners and no third party rights would be created in the interregnum. 7. In the absence of any third party rights, a liberal view could have been taken by the Appellate Authority more so when the reason for issuance of show cause notices were only a regulatory requirement. 7 8. While dealing with a similar fact scenario, Hon’ble Supreme Court in A.B.Govardhan v. P.Ragothaman1 held as under: 37. In Collector (LA) v. Katiji, the Court noted that it had been adopting a justifiably liberal approach in condoning delay and that “justice on merits” is to be preferred as against what “scuttles a decision on merits”. Albeit, while reversing an order of the High Court therein condoning delay, principles to guide the consideration of an application for condonation of delay were culled out in Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy. One of the factors taken note of therein was that substantial justice is paramount. 38. In N.L. Abhyankar v. Union of India, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court at Nagpur considered, though in the context of delay vis-à-vis Article 226 of the Constitution, the decision in Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Co. Ltd. v. District Board, Bhojpur, and held that : “22. … The real test for sound exercise of discretion by the High Court in this regard is not the physical running of time as such, but the test is whether by reason of delay there is such negligence on the part of the petitioner, so as to infer that he has given up his claim or whether before the petitioner has moved the writ court, the rights of the third parties have come into being which should not be allowed to be disturbed unless there is reasonable explanation for the delay.”(emphasis supplied) 1 (2024) 10 SCC 613 8 39. The Bombay High Court's eloquent statement of the correct position in law in N.L. Abhyankar case found approval in Municipal Council, Ahmednagar v. Shah Hyder Beig and Mool Chandra v. Union of India [Mool Chandra v. Union of India . 9. In view of the above, the order in Appeal dated 16.09.2025 passed by the 3rd Respondent is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. The Appellate Authority-Respondent No.2 shall examine the Appeal of the Petitioner on merits. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 10.03.2026 KLP