{"id":111634,"date":"2011-10-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-10-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-vs-national-on-7-october-2011"},"modified":"2018-05-03T13:50:44","modified_gmt":"2018-05-03T08:20:44","slug":"shri-vs-national-on-7-october-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-vs-national-on-7-october-2011","title":{"rendered":"Shri vs National on 7 October, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Shri vs National on 7 October, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: A.L.Dave, Mr.Justice J.B.Pardiwala,<\/div>\n
  \n Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n    \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/9484\/2011\t 26\/ 26\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 9484 of 2011\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nTHE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. A.L.DAVE\n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo be\n\t\t\treferred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nSHRI\nYOGANANDA EDUCATION & CHARITABLE TRUST SANCHALIT - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nNATIONAL\nCOUNCIL FOR TEACHERS' EDUCATION - WESTERN REGION & 3 -\nRespondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nPRATIK Y JASANI for\nPetitioner(s) : 1, \nMR AJ SHASTRI for Respondent(s) : 1, \nNOTICE\nSERVED for Respondent(s) : 2 - 3. \nNOTICE SERVED BY DS for\nRespondent(s) : 2, \nMR HRIDAY BUCH for Respondent(s) :\n3, \nGOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) :\n4, \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tTHE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. A.L.DAVE\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n:  07\/10\/2011 \n\n \n\n \n \nCAV\nJUDGMENT \n<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA)<\/p>\n
1)\tThis
\nwrit petition depicts extremely sorry State of affairs of a college
\nnamed Shri Nachiketa Mahila Shikshan (B.ed.) College, Rajkot run  and
\nmanaged by Shri Yoganand Educational & Charitable Trust, Rajkot,
\nB\/h. Indraprasth Hall, Mavdi Main Road, Rajkot, which is an
\nun-recognized educational institution imparting teacher education
\ni.e. B.Ed. Course. Over a period of time, we have come across so many
\npetitions preferred by such colleges whose recognition has been
\ncancelled by National Council for Teachers’ Education (for short
\n“NCTE”) on grounds like non-appointment of Principal,
\ninadequate teaching and non-teaching staff, lack of adequate
\ninfrastructure etc.  We are sad to note that ultimately the students
\nare the sufferers.  We are reminded of an observation made by the
\nSupreme Court almost two decades ago in the case of State of
\nMaharashtra Vs. Vikas Saherbrao Roundable & Ors. (1992) 4 SCC
\n435, in which the apex Court observed as under:-\n<\/p>\n
“2.This
\ncourt judicially noticed mushroom growth of ill equipped and
\nunder-staffed unrecognized educational institutions in Andhra
\nPradesh, Bihar, Tamilnadu and Maharashtra States and other states too
\nare no exceptions.  Obviously the field of education is found to be
\nfertile, perennial and profitable business venture with least capital
\noutlay.  This case is one such from the State of Maharashtra.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tIt
\nwould appear that individuals or societies without complying with the
\nstatutory requirements, establish educational or training
\ninstitutions ill equipped to impart education and have the students
\nadmitted, in some instances despite warnings by the State Govt. and
\nin some instances without knowledge of the concerned State Govt., but
\nwith connivance at lower levels.”\n<\/p>\n
\tWe
\ncan take judicial notice of the mushroom growth of ill-equipped,
\nunder-staffed and unrecognized educational institutions coming up
\neven in the State of Gujarat.\n<\/p>\n
2)\tFacts
\nrelevant
\nfor the purpose of deciding this petition can be summarized as
\nunder:-\n<\/p>\n
2.1)\tThe
\npetitioner – Trust, who runs a B.Ed. college, namely, Shri  Nachiketa
\nMahila Shiksan B.Ed. College, opposite Geeta Mandir, Geeta Mandir
\nRoad, Nr. Bhakti Nagar Circle, Rajkot has preferred this petition
\nchallenging the order dated 20th July 2011 passed by the
\n1st respondent-National Council for Teachers’
\nEducation (NCTE) , Western Region, Bhopal.  By the said order, the
\nrecognition\/permission  granted in favour of the
\npetitioner-Institution has been withdrawn in terms of Section 17 of
\nthe National Council for Teachers’ Education Act, 1993 (for short,
\n‘the NCTE Act’), substantially on the following grounds:-\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tInstitution does not have registered land document.  It is occupying
\n\tthe land belonging to Shri Uma Education Trust.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tInstitution has submitted building plan of Shri Uma Education Trust
\n\twhich is not even approved by the Rajkot Urban Development
\n\tAuthority.\n<\/p>\n
Land
\n\tuse certificate submitted by the Institution which belongs to the
\n\tland of Shri Uma Education Trust.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tInstitution does not have its own land and building.  It is running
\n\tin the premises of Shri Uma Education Trust.\n<\/p>\n
Staff
\n\tprofile has not been approved by the university.\n<\/p>\n
Two
\n\tother Institutions belonging to other trusts are running in the same
\n\tpremises.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tbuilding plan submitted by the Institution is that of the Shri Uma
\n\tEducation Trust.\n<\/p>\n
Merger
\n\tof Shri Uma Education Trust with Shri Jalaram Education Trust and
\n\tShri Morvi Sarvajanik Kelvani Mandal was never permitted by the WRC.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tcollege \/ trust did not possess land as per clause 8(5) of the NCTE
\n\tRegulations 2005.\n<\/p>\n
2.2)\tRecord
\nreveals that the recognition to run a B.Ed. College was granted in
\nfavour of the petitioner-Institution vide order  dated 27.09.2006 by
\nthe National Council for Teachers’ Education  under Section
\n14(3)(g) of the NCTE Act for conducting B.Ed. course with an intake
\nof 100 students. On 27.07.2008, a show-cause notice came to be
\nissued calling upon the petitioner to show-cause as to why the
\nrecognition\/permission should not be withdrawn in terms of Section 17
\nof the NCTE Act, as the following deficiencies came to the notice of
\nthe National Council for Teachers’ Education.\n<\/p>\n
(a)\tLand
\narea is inadequate.\n<\/p>\n
(b)\tBuilt
\nup area is inadequate.\n<\/p>\n
(c
\n)\tSize of the class rooms and multipurpose \thall is inadequate.\n<\/p>\n
(d)\tStaff
\nhas not been appointed as per norms.\n<\/p>\n
2.3)\tOn
\n1st December 2008, the National Council for Teachers’
\nEducation passed an order, withdrawing the recognition\/permission on
\nthe following grounds:-\n<\/p>\n
(i)\tBuilding
\nplan is not approved.  (Not as per \tthe show-cause notice)<\/p>\n
(ii)\tStaff
\nis not appointed as per the norms.\n<\/p>\n
2.4)\tThe
\npetitioner challenged the order of withdrawal by way of filing
\nSpecial Civil Application No.4575 of 2009.  It appears that the
\nDivision Bench of this Court earlier stayed the order of withdrawal
\ndated 1st December 2008 and, thereafter, by way of common
\njudgment and order dated 14.05.2010 quashed and set aside the order
\npassed by the National Council for Teachers’ Education with
\ncertain directions as mentioned in paragraph 29 of the said judgment,
\nwhich reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
i)\tAll
\nthe petitioners shall remove all the defects and confirm to all the
\nnorms of NCTE as applicable to the concerned institution as
\ninterpreted and explained herein above for which the petitioners
\nshall have time upto 31.12.2010.\n<\/p>\n
ii)\tInstitutions
\nafter curing all the defects not later than by 07.01.2011, shall
\nintimate to the NCTE that defects have been cured and invite the
\ninspection team to carry out inspection.\n<\/p>\n
\tFor
\nthe above purpose, the concerned Institution shall along with its
\ncommunication to NCTE attach a draft of Rs.10,000\/- in favour of NCTE
\nfor one time cost of such inspection.\n<\/p>\n
\tIf
\nany Institution fails to send such a communication within the time
\npermitted, the recognition shall automatically stand withdrawn
\nwithout requirement of passing any order.  Though students already
\nadmitted shall not be affected by such withdrawal, the Institution
\nwill not be permitted to admit any students in the next academic
\nyear.\n<\/p>\n
iii)\tUpon
\nreceipt of such a communication, NCTE shall depute a team of
\nqualified persons to visit the Institution, verify the infrastructure
\nand other facilities available as also insect the documents with
\nrespect to such facilities.\n<\/p>\n
iv)\tUpon
\ninspection, if NCTE finds that all defects are cured, certificate to
\nthat effect shall be given to the concerned institution and its
\nrecognition shall be continued.\n<\/p>\n
v)\tIf
\nupon inspection however, NCTE finds any of the defects still
\nremaining, it will be open for NCTE to pass appropriate orders in
\naccordance with law after issuing show cause notice to the concerned
\nInstitution\/trust.\n<\/p>\n
vi)\tIn
\nview of above directions, all the orders cancelling recognition of
\nthe Institutions are set aside.  It is clarified that quashing of
\norders passed by the NCTE is not on merits, but only to enable the
\nInstitutions to fulfill all the requirements within the extended
\ntime.\n<\/p>\n
2.5)\tAs
\nper the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court, the
\nInstitution was expected and obliged to take care of all the
\ndeficiencies pointed out in the withdrawal order, on or before 31st
\nDecember 2010. It appears that the petitioner intimated the National
\nCouncil for Teachers’ Education on 20.12.2010 that all the
\nshortcomings and the deficiencies have been taken care of and invited
\nthe visiting team of the National Council for Teachers’
\nEducation to inspect the premises of the petitioner-college, by
\ndepositing a sum of Rs.10,000\/- towards inspection fees.\n<\/p>\n
2.6)\tThe
\nvisiting team deputed by the National Council for Teachers’
\nEducation inspected the premises of the petitioner-college and found
\nthat all the deficiencies have been taken care of and opined that the
\nInstitution may be permitted to continue.\n<\/p>\n
2.7)\tRecord
\nreveals that on 28.04.2011, the National Council for Teachers’
\nEducation once again issued a show-cause notice, whereby it was
\nmentioned that after considering the visiting team’s report, the
\nfollowing deficiencies are found in the college of the petitioner:-\n<\/p>\n
a)\tThe
\ncollege is being run in a residential flat as per the building plan
\nsubmitted.\n<\/p>\n
b)\tCertified
\ncopy of the registered lease deed is not submitted.\n<\/p>\n
c)\tTwo
\nmembers of the staff (as per the list attached) are not qualified.\n<\/p>\n
d)\tThe
\nland documents duly certified by the competent authority was not
\nsubmitted along with the application that was required as per the
\nsection 7(d) of the NCTE Norms and Standards 2002 or as per section
\n8(5) of the NCTE Norms and Standards 2005.\n<\/p>\n
2.8)\tIt
\nappears that the petitioner-Institute sent a reply along with all the
\ndocuments which were demanded by the National Council for Teachers’
\nEducation in its show-cause notice dated 28.04.2011.\n<\/p>\n
2.9)\tAs
\nthe show-cause notice was issued upon the petitioner-Institute, the
\nUniversity did not allot students to the petitioner and, therefore,
\nthe petitioner had preferred Special Civil Application No.6509 of
\n2011 with a prayer to allot students to the petitioner-college. Since
\nthere were fifteen such petitions challenging the action of the
\nUniversity in not allotting the students, the Division Bench of this
\nCourt, by a common judgment and order dated 14.06.2011, directed the
\nUniversity to allot students to the petitioner-college for the
\ncurrent academic year 2011-2012. It appears that for some reasons,
\nthe allotment process was ordered to be cancelled by the University
\nas there were some lacuna on the part of University in allotment of
\nstudents to the quota of reserved category. The University,
\nthereafter, published a fresh advertisement for allotment of
\nstudents.\n<\/p>\n
2.10)\tIn
\nthe meantime, an order dated 19.07.2011 came to be served upon the
\npetitioner-Institution, withdrawing the recognition\/permission in
\nterms of Section 17 of the NCTE Act on nine grounds which are as
\nunder:-\n<\/p>\n
i)\tThe
\nInstitute does not have registered land \tdocument.  It is occupying
\nthe land \tbelonging to Shree Uma Education Trust.\n<\/p>\n
ii)\tThe
\nInstitution has submitted building plan \tof Shri Uma Education Trust
\nwhich is not \teven approved by the Rajkot Urban \tDevelopment
\nAuthority.\n<\/p>\n
iii)\tLand
\nuse certificate submitted by the \tInstitution which belongs to the
\nland of \tShri Uma Education Trust.\n<\/p>\n
iv)\tThe
\nInstitution does not have its own land \tand building.  It is running
\nin the premises \tof Shri Uma Education Trust.\n<\/p>\n
v)\tStaff
\nprofile has not been approved by the \tuniversity.\n<\/p>\n
vi)\tTwo
\nother Institutions belonging to the \tother trusts are running in the
\nsame \tpremises.\n<\/p>\n
vii)\tThe
\nbuilding plan submitted by the \tInstitution is that of the Shri Uma
\n\tEducation Trust.\n<\/p>\n
viii)Merger
\nof Shri Uma Education Trust with \tShri Jalaram Education Trust and
\nShri Morvi \tSarvajanik Kelvani Mandal was never \tpermitted by the
\nWRC.\n<\/p>\n
ix)\tThe
\ncollege\/trust did not possess land as \tper clause 8(5) of the NCTE
\nRegulations \t2005.\n<\/p>\n
2.11)
\nAt that stage, the petitioner vehemently contended that the grounds
\non which the recognition of the petitioner-Institute came to be
\nwithdrawn were never a part of the show-cause notice dated 28.04.2011
\nand the order of withdrawal of recognition traversed beyond the
\nshow-cause notice. In this background, this petition has been
\npreferred challenging the order and the action of the National
\nCouncil for Teachers’ Education in withdrawing the
\nrecognition\/permission to run the Institute.  The notices were issued
\nupon respondent nos.2 and 3.  On 24.08.2011, the Division Bench of
\nthis Court passed the following order:-\n<\/p>\n
“An
\naffidavit has been filed by the fifth respondent.\n<\/p>\n
The
\nlearned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner produced a
\nletter dated 19.8.2011 written by the Regional Director, National
\nCouncil for Teacher Education, Western Regional Committee, Bhopal to
\nthe Director\/Chairman of Shri Nachiketa Mahila Sikshan B.Ed. College
\nenclosing therein an inspection report dated 25.3.2011 to show that
\nthe Inspection Team has given a favourable report in favour of the
\ninstitute and recommended to permit the petitioner-institute to run
\nB.Ed. course. It is alleged that in spite of such recommendation,
\ngiving reference to order passed in some other college,
\nrecommendation of the petitioner-institute has been cancelled.\n<\/p>\n
While
\nwe allow the petitioner to file the aforesaid letter along with a
\nreport, enclosing  with an affidavit, grant one day time to the
\ncounsel for the NCTE to obtain instruction and state as to why the
\nrespondents be not directed to allot students in favour of the
\npetitioner-institute.\n<\/p>\n
Post
\nthe matter on 26th August 2011 within five cases.”\n<\/p>\n
2.12)
\nOn 26.08.2011, the Division
\nBench of this Court passed further order, which reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
“Learned
\ncounsel appearing on behalf of National Council for Teachers’
\nEducation [NCTE] prays for and is allowed time till 29th
\nAugust, 2011 to file affidavit enclosing copy of the latest report
\nand any other document if they intend to file.\n<\/p>\n
In
\nthe meantime, taking into consideration the report dated 25th
\nMarch, 2011 submitted with letter F.No. 61-1247\/2011\/RTI\/80820, dated
\n19th August, 2011, issued by Regional Director, NCTE,
\nWestern Region, Bhopal, we direct Saurashtra University to allot
\nstudents to the petitioner Institution, subject to the decision of
\nthe case.\n<\/p>\n
Post
\nthe matter on 30th August, 2011 within ten cases.”\n<\/p>\n
2.13)
\nIt is the case on behalf of the petitioner-Institute that the
\nUniversity allotted students to the petitioner-college and as of now
\nsixty one students are studying in the college of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
2.14)
\nIt appears that during the pendency of this petition, the National
\nCouncil for Teachers’ Education  issued a fresh modified
\nwithdrawal order against the petitioner, whereby the National Council
\nfor Teachers’ Education  relying on the visiting report,
\nwithdrew the recognition of the petitioner college on the following
\ngrounds:-\n<\/p>\n
i)\tThe
\nInstitution neither had land on the date of submission of application
\nas per Clause 7(D) of the NCTE regulations 2002, nor does it have the
\nland even today.  (NOT MENTIONED IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE).\n<\/p>\n
ii)\tThe
\nInstitution is running in a flat of Multi Storied Residential
\nBuilding.  (NOT MENTIONED IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE).\n<\/p>\n
iii)\tRegistered
\nlease deed of the flat was executed on 18.03.2011, that is beyond the
\ntime limit of 31.12.2010 as prescribed by the Hon’ble High Court.
\n(NOT MENTIONED IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE).\n<\/p>\n
iv)\tOne
\nof the lecturers was not qualified as per the date of appointment.
\n(NOT MENTIONED IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE).\n<\/p>\n
2.15)
\nIn light of this development, the Division Bench of this Court, vide
\norder dated 30th August 2011, observed as under:-\n<\/p>\n
“We
\nare not happy in the manner the Western Regional Committee passed
\nmodified order dated 24.8.2011 while the matter was pending before
\nthis Court. It is contrary to the inspection report circulated by the
\nsame very Western Regional Committee on 19.8.2011 under the signature
\nof the Regional Director, Western Regional Committee, National
\nCouncil for Teacher Education, Bhopal.\n<\/p>\n
In
\nthe circumstances, we direct Dr H.S. Tripathi, Regional Director,
\nWestern Regional Committee, National Council for Teacher Education,
\nBhopal to appear in person along with the original record and explain
\nthe matter on the next date. If it is found that he has wrongly
\nissued the earlier report by letter dated 19.8.2011, he will explain
\nwhy this matter may not be referred to the higher authority of
\nNational Council for Teacher Education for taking appropriate action
\nagainst the erring officer.\n<\/p>\n
In
\nthe meantime, the Regional Director will send a new committee to
\ninspect both the premises with respect to defect as recently pointed
\nout by the National Council for Teacher Education, who after
\ninspection, will submit a fresh report.\n<\/p>\n
Post
\nthe matter on 7th September 2011 on the top of the list.\n<\/p>\n
Let
\na copy of this order be handed over to Mr AJ Shastri, who will inform
\nthe officer of his appearance.”\n<\/p>\n
2.16)
\nIn light of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court
\ndated 30th August 2011, a new committee was constituted by
\nthe National Council for Teachers’ Education who inspected the
\npremises of the petitioner-Institute and filed their inspection
\nreports. We called for the inspection reports prepared by the new
\ncommittee and we ordered that the original records which have been
\ndropped before the Court be kept ready for perusal of the Court.  The
\noriginal report submitted in both the cases was kept in a sealed
\ncover. We perused the report which was kept in a sealed cover, and
\nthe observations of the committee members are as under:-\n<\/p>\n
“The
\nHon’ble Court had directed to do the inspection with regards to the
\ndefects pointed out in the withdrawal order. The team scrupulously
\nfollowed the court’s directions.\n<\/p>\n
The
\nteam had done the videography and photography  of infrastructure,
\ninstructional facilities, staff. The C.D. and album are enclosed.
\nThe four corners of the land and building are picturised prominently
\nin the videography and the photography  and also the equipments and
\nfurniture in the rooms.  The observations of the visiting team are
\nnoted below:-\n<\/p>\n
i)\tIt
\nis true that the college is being run in a building of residential
\nuse.  The institution could not submit the building use certificate
\nfor educational purpose as yet.  The building plan clearly shows that
\nthe constructed premise is meant for residential use.  There is a
\nparking space shown in the map.  The rooms are small in size.  The
\nbuilding is surrounded by residential buildings.\n<\/p>\n
ii)\tThe
\nInstitution has now submitted the certified copy of the registered
\ndeed.  On close scrutiny  of the lease deed, the team feels that the
\nlease deed of 30 years is only for constructed premise and, not for
\n‘Land’ and the building thereon.\n<\/p>\n
iii)\tAfter
\nthe perusal of the consolidated bio-data of teaching staff, there is
\nno provision of teaching all school subjects.  There is no lecture
\nfor  ‘English’ and ‘Maths’.  Original degree certificates and mark
\nlists were not submitted to the team for checking one teacher is not
\nM.Ed.\n<\/p>\n
iv)\tNow,
\nthe Institution had submitted the land documents duly certified by
\nthe competent authority.  But in the opinion of the visiting team,
\nthe land on which the Institutional building stand is not on 30 years
\nlease period.  As per NCTE Norms of 2005, the institution does not
\npossess adequate land or ownership or government land on long term
\nlease.\n<\/p>\n
v)\tThe
\nconsolidated biodata of teaching staff is  not approved by the
\nSaurashtra University, Rajkot.  Only one individual biodata of the
\nPrincipal is approved by the University.”\n<\/p>\n
S.no.\n<\/p>\n
Name
\n\t\t\tof Member<\/p>\n
Signature
\n\t\t\tof member<\/p>\n
Date<\/p>\n
1<\/span><\/p>\n
Prof.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\tV.R. Savarkar<\/p>\n
sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
6.9.2011<\/p>\n
2<\/span><\/p>\n
Dr.B.B.Singh<\/p>\n
sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
6.9.2011<\/p>\n
3<\/span><\/p>\n
4<\/span><\/p>\n
Representative
\n\t\t\tof Management.\n<\/p>\n
3)\tWe
\nhave heard learned senior counsel Mr.Yatin N. Oza appearing with
\nlearned advocate Mr.Pratik Jasani for the petitioner, learned
\nadvocate Mr.A.J. Shastri appearing for respondent no.1, learned
\nadvocate Mr.Hriday Buch for respondent no.3 and learned AGP Mrs.Krina
\nCalla appearing for respondent no.4-State.\n<\/p>\n
4)\tLearned
\ncounsel for the petitioner would submit that the National Council for
\nTeachers’ Education has, uptill now on three occasions,
\ninspected the college of the petitioner. He would submit that on all
\nthe three occasions, the inspecting team did not find any deficiency.
\nHe would submit that an order cannot traversed beyond the show-cause
\nnotice.  He would further submit that though it has been argued on
\nbehalf of the National Council for Teachers’ Education that the
\nreport dated 25.03.2011 is a false report, nowhere in the affidavit
\ndated 27.08.2011 it has been stated that the report of the visiting
\nteam is false or it has not been believed to be a genuine one. He
\nwould further submit that none
\nof the grounds mentioned in any of the order are such which would
\ncome in the way of the petitioner to impart education to its
\nstudents.  That none of the defects as pointed out by the National
\nCouncil for Teachers’ Education are of such a nature that
\nwithout taking care of the defects, college cannot function.  He
\nwould further contend that though the order made by the National
\nCouncil for Teachers’ Education is completely against the
\nreport of its visiting team, explanations subsequently given by the
\nofficer passing the order cannot be accepted by way of an affidavit.
\nHe would further submit that though there is an alternative remedy
\navailable for challenging the order passed by the National Council
\nfor Teachers’ Education by preferring an appeal under Section
\n18 of the NCTE Act, the remedy cannot be said to be an efficacious
\nremedy as the Appellate Authority constituted under the Act does not
\nhave any power to stay the order passed by the National Council for
\nTeachers’ Education and it cannot direct the University to
\nallot the students. He would further submit that the petitioner is
\nowning land on a long term lease basis for a period of thirty years.
\nHe would further submit that the copy of the approved building plan
\nhas been annexed suggestive of the fact that the petitioner is having
\nfour class rooms, one multipurpose hall, one library, one psychology
\nlab, one science lab, one computer lab, one language, education and
\ntechnology lab, one Principal’s room, one staff room, one store room
\nand one office room. He would submit that since the grounds which are
\nrelied upon by the National Council for Teachers’ Education in
\ncancelling the recognition\/permission of the petitioner-Institute
\ndoes not fall within the ambit of the 2005 Norms and Regulations of
\nthe NCTE, with which the petitioner-Institute is governed, the
\nimpugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside in the interest
\nof justice and equity.\n<\/p>\n
5)\tHe
\nwould also submit that the order of withdrawal dated 19.07.2011 would
\ncome into effect from the next academic sessions following the date
\nof withdrawal order  and, therefore, the order will actually take
\neffect in 2012-13.  As on today, the petitioner-Institute can be said
\nto be a recognized Institute and they may be permitted to impart
\neducation to the students.\n<\/p>\n
6)\tPer
\ncontra, learned advocate Mr.Shastri appearing for the National
\nCouncil for Teachers’ Education submitted that the earlier
\ninspection which was carried out by the visiting team was not
\nproperly carried out and in spite of number of deficiencies, the
\ninspecting team prepared a report favourable to the
\npetitioner-Institute.  He would submit that the higher authorities of
\nthe National Council for Teachers’ Education suspected some
\nmischief and they are also contemplating some actions against the
\nmembers of the visiting team who prepared a report contrary to the
\nposition which was in existence. He would submit that as per the
\norder passed by the Division Bench of this Court, a new committee was
\nconstituted to inspect the premises with respect to defect, and the
\nreport has been submitted in a sealed cover before this Court.  He
\nwould submit that there are large number of deficiencies and,
\ntherefore, it would not be in the interest of the students to permit
\nor allow such an institute to impart education for conducting B.Ed.
\ncourse. Learned advocate appearing for the National Council for
\nTeachers’ Education placed strong reliance on the judgment
\nrendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Chairman, Bhartia
\nEducation Society & Anr. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh &
\nOrs., reported in (2011) 4 SCC 527,  more particularly the
\nprinciples initiated in paragraph nos. 9,11,13,15,18,19,22 and 24 of
\nthe said judgment. The learned advocate also invited attention of
\nthis Court to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
\ncase of State of Maharashtra Vs. Vikas Saherbrao Roundale, reported
\nin (1992) 4 SCC 435 and stated that while taking judicial notice of
\nmushroom growth of ill-equipped and under-staffed unrecognized
\neducational institutions in Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Tamil Nadu and
\nMaharashtra States and other states too, the Apex Court has observed
\nthat the field of education is found to be fertile, perennial and
\nprofitable business venture with least capital out-lay and without
\ncomplying with the statutory requirements, establish educational or
\ntraining institutions ill equipped to impart education and have the
\nstudents admitted.  In the same case in paragraph 6, while referring
\nto the case of N.M. Nageshwaramma Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and
\nanother, reported in 1986 (Supp) SCC 166, has observed that if the
\nGovernment is directed to permit the students admitted in those
\ninstitutions to appear in the examinations, the Hon’ble Court would
\npractically be encouraging  and condoning the establishment of
\nunauthorized institutions and has observed that it is not appropriate
\nthat the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Court under Article 32 or
\nArticle 226 of the Constitution of India should be frittered away for
\nsuch a purpose. So the request to permit the students who had
\ntraining in unrecognized schools was deprecated by the Hon’ble Spreme
\nCourt of India.  In the said case the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
\nmade the following observations:-\n<\/p>\n
”\n<\/p>\n
6.\tIn
\nN.M. Nageshwaramma Vs. State of A.P. 1
\nthis court held that the private institutions unauthorizedly
\nestablished were invariably ill housed, ill staffed and ill equipped.
\n If the Government is directed to permit the students admitted into
\nthose institutions, to appear in the examination, we will practically
\nbe encouraging and
\ncondoning the establishment of unauthorized institutions.  it is not
\nappropriate that the jurisdiction of the court either under Article
\n32 or Article 226 of the Constitution should be frittered away for
\nsuch a purpose.  So the request to permit the students who had
\ntraining in unrecognized schools was deprecated by this Court.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tIn
\nA.P. Christians Medical Educational Society, Vs. Govt. Of A.P. wen
\nfervent request, with all persuasion by the senior  counsel, Shri
\nK.K. Venugopal, to permit the students admitted in unrecognized and
\nunauthorized institution to pursue balance course was made, this
\nCourt noted thus: (SCC p. 678, para 10)’we do not think that we can
\npossibly accede to the  request made on behalf of the students.  Any
\ndirection of the nature sought for… would be in clear tansgression
\nof the provisions of the University Act and the regulations of the
\nUniversity.  We cannot by our flat direct the University to disobey
\nthe statute to which it owes its existence and the regulations made
\nby the University itself.  We cannot imagine anything more
\ndestructive of the rule of law than a direction by the court to
\ndisobey the laws.”\n<\/p>\n
8.\tIn
\nall Bihar Christian Schools Association Vs. State of Bihar 3
\nthis court, when the ill-equipped and mismanaged schools wer taken
\nover by an Act whose validity was challenged on the anvil of Article
\n30 of the Constitution, held that even the minority institutions are
\nsubject to statutory regulations and establishment and maintenance of
\nsuch an educational institution should be in conformity with the
\nstatute and the State is entitled to regulate the establishment of
\nthe educational institutions and the admission of the students in
\nthose educational institutions.  It was held that the educational
\ninstitutions of the minorities have no right to maladministration.
\nAny rule or direction issued by the Government to prevent
\nmaladministration would be valid.\n<\/p>\n
9.\tIn
\nState of T.N. Vs. St. Joseph Teachers Training
\nInstitute 4 the High
\nCourt of Madras while dismissing the writ petitions filed by
\nunauthorized educational institutions, gave direction to admit the
\nstudents for the examination.  This Court held that the direction of
\nadmitting students of unauthorized educational institutions and thus
\nseeking direction for permitting the students to appear at the
\nexamination has been looked with disfavour by this Court.  It was
\nheld that since the students of unrecognized institutions were
\nlegally not entitled to appear at the examination conducted by the
\nEducational Department of the Government, the High Court acted in
\nviolation of law in granting permission to such students for
\nappearing at the public examination.  Accordingly, the appeal was
\nallowed and the direction issued was set aside.\n<\/p>\n
10.\tIn
\nstudents of Dattatraya Adhyapak Vidyalya Vs. State of Maharashtra
\nthis court held thus:\n<\/p>\n
“we
\nare coming across case of this type very often where allegations are
\nmade that innocent students are admitted into unrecognized schools
\nand are made to suffer.  Some courts out of compassion occasionally
\ninterfere to relieve the hardships.  We find that the result of this
\nsituation is total indiscipline in the field of regulation.”\n<\/p>\n
11.\tIn
\nAndhra Kesari Educational Society Vs. Director of School Education
\nrelied upon by the counsel for the respondents, no doubt this Court
\ndirected the Government to consider whether the students in the
\nappellant’s college have undergone the necessary B.Ed. course and has
\npermitted them to appear in the ensuing examination and publish their
\nresults.  In that case, there was a long drawn history of the
\nrecognition of the institute and that the direction was issued by
\nthis Court in the special circumstances therein.  Therefore, it
\ncannot be taken as a precedent, in particular, in the light of the
\nlaw laid down by this Court as stated supra.\n<\/p>\n
12.\tThe
\nill-equipped and ill-housed institutions and sub-standard staff
\ntherein are counter-productive and detrimental to inculcating spirit
\nof enquiry and excellence in the students.  The disregard of
\nstatutory compliance would amount to letting loose of innocent and
\nunwary children. The proceedings of the recent seminar held in Delhi,
\nas published by the Times of India Dated August 4,1992, would
\ndemonstrate              the admission by the teachers that they are
\nnot properly trained to cope up with the growing needs of the society
\nand are unsuited to the duties they have to shoulder in imparting
\nteaching to the children.  The teacher plays pivotal role in moulding
\nthe career, character and moral fibres and aptitude for educational
\nexcellence in impressive young children. Formal education needs
\nproper equipping of the teachers to meet the challenges of the day to
\nimpart lessons with latest techniques to the students on secular,
\nscientific and rational outlook.  A well-equipped teacher could bring
\nthe needed skills and intellectual capabilities to the students in
\ntheir pursuits.  The teacher is adorned as Gurudevobhava, next after
\nparents, as he is a principal instrument to awakening the child to
\nthe cultural ethos, intellectual excellence and discipline.  The
\nteachers, therefore, must keep abreast of ever-changing techniques,
\nthe needs of the society and to cope up with the psychological
\napproach to the aptitudes of the children to perform  that pivotal
\nrole.  In short teachers need to be endowed and energised with needed
\npotential to serve the needs of the society.  The qualitative
\ntraining in the training colleges or schools would inspire and
\nmotivate them into action to the benefit of the students. For
\nequipping such trainee students in a school or a college, all
\nfacilities and equipments are absolutely necessary and institutions
\nbereft thereof have no place to exist nor entitled to recognition.
\nIn that behalf compliance of the statutory requirements is insisted
\nupon, slackening the standard and judicial flat to control the mode
\nof education and examining system are detrimental to the efficient
\nmanagement of the education.\n<\/p>\n
 The directions to the appellants to disobey the law is subversive of
\nthe rule of law, a breeding ground for corruption and feeding source
\nfor indiscipline.  The High Court, therefore, committed manifest
\nerror in law, in exercising its prerogative power conferred under
\nArticle 226 of the Constitution, directing the appellants to permit
\nthe students to appear for the examination etc.”\n<\/p>\n
7)\tLearned
\nadvocate appearing for the University also placed reliance on the
\njudgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court mentioned in the affidavit of the
\nUniversity in the case of National Board of Examinations Vs. G.Anand
\nRamamurthy and others, reported in (2006) 5 SCC 515 and in the case
\nof Bihar Public Service Commission and  others Vs. Kamini (2007) 5
\nSCC 519, in the case of University of Mysore Vs. Govinda Rao,
\nreported in AIR 1965 SC 491 and in the case of All India Council for
\nTechnical Education Vs. Surinder Kumar Dhawan and others, reported in
\n2009 AIR SCW 3124, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 13
\nhas made observations in respect of rule of statutory expert bodies
\non education  and role of Courts.\n<\/p>\n
8)\tHaving
\nheard learned counsel for the respective parties and having given our
\nanxious thoughts and considerations to the rival contentions, we are
\nof the view that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief as
\nprayed for, keeping in mind the interest of the students. Firstly, we
\nhave noticed that there are many disputed questions of fact.
\nSecondly, we cannot ignore the report of the second inspecting team,
\nwhich visited the premises on 6th September 2011, where
\nthe members of the team have reported number of deficiencies, which
\nwe have noticed and the same is  incorporated in the earlier part of
\nthe judgment. We cannot permit the students to continue in such an
\ninstitution, which has no basic infrastructure and does not fulfill
\nthe 2005 NCTE Regulations and Norms.  We have also been informed that
\nthe students have been transferred to other recognized colleges, so
\nthat their career is not put to stake.\n<\/p>\n
 In the above view of the matter, we are left with no other option
\nbut to reject the petition.  The petition is rejected with no order
\nas to costs.  Notice is discharged.\n<\/p>\n
(A.L.DAVE,
\nACTG. C. J.)<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t(J.B.PARDIWALA,J.)<\/p>\n
Vahid<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Shri vs National on 7 October, 2011 Author: A.L.Dave, Mr.Justice J.B.Pardiwala, Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/9484\/2011 26\/ 26 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9484 of 2011 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. A.L.DAVE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA ========================================================= […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-111634","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nShri vs National on 7 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-vs-national-on-7-october-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shri vs National on 7 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-vs-national-on-7-october-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-10-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-03T08:20:44+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"28 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-vs-national-on-7-october-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-vs-national-on-7-october-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shri vs National on 7 October, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-10-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-03T08:20:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-vs-national-on-7-october-2011\"},\"wordCount\":5333,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-vs-national-on-7-october-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-vs-national-on-7-october-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-vs-national-on-7-october-2011\",\"name\":\"Shri vs National on 7 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-10-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-03T08:20:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-vs-national-on-7-october-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-vs-national-on-7-october-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-vs-national-on-7-october-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shri vs National on 7 October, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Shri vs National on 7 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-vs-national-on-7-october-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shri vs National on 7 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-vs-national-on-7-october-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-10-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-03T08:20:44+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"28 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-vs-national-on-7-october-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-vs-national-on-7-october-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shri vs National on 7 October, 2011","datePublished":"2011-10-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-03T08:20:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-vs-national-on-7-october-2011"},"wordCount":5333,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-vs-national-on-7-october-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-vs-national-on-7-october-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-vs-national-on-7-october-2011","name":"Shri vs National on 7 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-10-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-03T08:20:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-vs-national-on-7-october-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-vs-national-on-7-october-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-vs-national-on-7-october-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shri vs National on 7 October, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/111634","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=111634"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/111634\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=111634"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=111634"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=111634"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}