{"id":118156,"date":"2009-07-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-07-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gyanodaya-shikshan-pracharak-vs-2-the-registrar-on-30-july-2009"},"modified":"2016-05-21T09:55:45","modified_gmt":"2016-05-21T04:25:45","slug":"gyanodaya-shikshan-pracharak-vs-2-the-registrar-on-30-july-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gyanodaya-shikshan-pracharak-vs-2-the-registrar-on-30-july-2009","title":{"rendered":"Gyanodaya Shikshan Pracharak … vs 2] The Registrar on 30 July, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Gyanodaya Shikshan Pracharak … vs 2] The Registrar on 30 July, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: S.B. Mhase, R. M. Savant<\/div>\n
                                        1\n\n    lgc\n              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n\n\n                                                                          \n                        WRIT PETITION NO.5884 OF 2009\n\n\n\n\n                                                  \n    Gyanodaya Shikshan Pracharak Samiti's               ]\n    Gyanodaya B.Ed. College                             ]\n    through its Secretar\/Trustee                        ]\n\n\n\n\n                                                 \n    a Public Trust registered under                     ]\n    Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950,                      ]\n    and a Society Registered under the                  ]\n    Society Registration Act, 1860 having its           ]\n\n\n\n\n                                        \n    office at Survey No.160\/4, Post J K Gram            ]\n    Savarkar Nagar, Dist. Thane 400 606\n                            ig                          ].... Petitioners\n\n               versus\n                          \n    1]    The State of Maharashtra                      ]\n          Through the Secretary                         ]\n          Higher Education Mantralaya, Mumbai           ]\n                                                        ]\n            \n\n\n    2]    The Registrar,                                ]\n         \n\n\n\n          Mumbai University, M G Road, Mumbai           ]\n                                                        ]\n    3]    The Regional Director, Western                ]\n          Region Committee NCTE,                        ]\n\n\n\n\n\n          Manus Bhavan, Shamla Hill, Bhopal             ].... Respondents.\n\n\n                                ALONG WITH\n                        WRIT PETITION NO.5886 OF 2009\n\n\n\n\n\n    1]    Habib Educational & Welfare Society           ]\n          a Society registered under the Societies      ]\n          Registration Act, 1860 and a public trust     ]\n          registered under the Bombay Public Trust      ]\n          Act, 1950 having its office - Hissa No.2,     ]\n          Khasra No.9, At post - Kausa, Mumbra          ]\n          Thane 400 612, through its President          ]\n          Shri Mohammed Shoeb Habibulla Khan            ]\n\n\n                                                  ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:50:50 :::\n                                        2\n\n    2]   Late Khatija College of Eudcation,               ]\n         Hissa No.2, Khasra No.9, At post - Kausa,        ]\n         Mumbra, Thane 400 612                            ]..Petitioners\n\n\n\n\n                                                                           \n              Versus\n\n\n\n\n                                                   \n    1]   The State of Maharashtra                         ]\n         Through its Secretary, Higher & Technical        ]\n         Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai                   ]\n\n\n\n\n                                                  \n         (to be served on learned Government Pleader      ]\n         High Court, Bombay (A.S.)                        ]\n                                                          ]\n    2]   The Registrar,                                   ]\n\n\n\n\n                                        \n         Mumbai University, M G Road, Mumbai              ]\n                           ig                             ]\n    3]   The Regional Director,                           ]\n         National Council for Teacher Education           ]\n         Western Regional Committee                       ]\n                         \n         Manus Bhavan, Shamla Hill, Bhopal, M.P           ].... Respondents.\n\n\n                               ALONG WITH\n           \n\n\n                       WRIT PETITION NO.5963 OF 2009\n        \n\n\n\n         Shri Kanhaiyalal Maharaj Shaishanik  &           ]\n         Samajik Trust, Sainath Shikshanshastra           ]\n         Mahavidyalaya (B.Ed. (M) College,)               ]\n\n\n\n\n\n         Through the President \/ Trustee                  ]\n         registered under the Bombay Public Trust         ]\n         Act, and also the society registered under the   ]\n         Societies Registration Act, 1860 having their    ]\n         office \/ college at Hotel Parth, Murlidhar       ]\n\n\n\n\n\n         Complex, Gangaghat, Behind Panchavati            ] \n         Dist Nashik                                      ]...Petitioners\n\n              Versus\n\n    1]   The State of Maharashtra                         ]\n         Through the Secretary, Higher Education          ]\n          Mantralaya, Mumbai 32                           ]\n\n\n\n\n                                                   ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:50:51 :::\n                                        3\n\n    2]   The Registrar,                             ]\n         Pune University, Ganeshkhind, Pune 411 007 ]\n                                                    ]\n\n\n\n\n                                                                           \n    3]   The Regional Director,                     ]\n         National Council for Teacher Education     ]\n\n\n\n\n                                                   \n         Western Regional Committee                 ]\n         Manus Bhavan, Shamla Hill, Bhopal, M.P     ].... Respondents.\n\n\n\n\n                                                  \n                               ALONGWITH \n                       WRIT PETITION NO.5964 OF 2009\n\n         Bahuuddeshiya Samajik Gramin And                 ]\n\n\n\n\n                                        \n         Shaikshanik Sanstha Shikshan                     ]\n         Shashra (B.Ed. (M) College,)\n                           ig                             ]\n         Through the President \/ Trustee                  ]\n         registered under the Bombay Public Trust         ]\n         Act, and also the society registered under the   ]\n                         \n         Societies Registration Act, 1860 having their    ]\n         office at Gat No.830, D.Ed. College, Abhona      ]\n         (Nanduri Road), Tal. Kalwan, Dist Nashik         ]...Petitioners\n           \n\n\n              Versus\n        \n\n\n\n    1]   The State of Maharashtra                   ]\n         Through the Secretary, Higher Education    ]\n          Mantralaya, Mumbai 32                     ]\n\n\n\n\n\n                                                    ]\n    2]   The Registrar,                             ]\n         Pune University, Ganeshkhind, Pune 411 007 ]\n\n    3]   The Regional Director,                           ]\n\n\n\n\n\n         National Council for Teacher Education           ]\n         Western Regional Committee                       ]\n         Manus Bhavan, Shamla Hill, Bhopal, M.P           ].... Respondents.\n\n                               ALONG WITH\n                       WRIT PETITION NO.5975 OF 2009\n\n         Somnatharpan Shikshan Prasarak                   ]\n         Sanstha's (B.Ed. Women's College,)               ]\n         Through the President \/ Trustee                  ]\n\n\n                                                   ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:50:51 :::\n                                        4\n\n         registered under the Bombay Public Trust         ]\n         Act, and also the society registered under the   ]\n         Societies Registration Act, 1860 having their    ]\n\n\n\n\n                                                                           \n         office \/ college at Plot No.746\/1 and            ]\n         Plot No.9 & 10 Khasra No.1144\/314, Savda         ]\n\n\n\n\n                                                   \n         Road, Raver, Dist Jalgaon                        ]\n         and also having address at Lock No.10,           ]\n         Santoshi Mata Mandir Road, Suman Apt.            ]\n         Kalyan Dist. Thane                               ]...Petitioners\n\n\n\n\n                                                  \n              Versus\n\n    1]   The State of Maharashtra                         ]\n\n\n\n\n                                        \n         Through the Secretary, Higher Education          ]\n          Mantralaya, Mumbai 32\n                           ig                             ]\n                                                          ]\n    2]   The Registrar,                                   ]\n         S.N.D.T. Women's University                      ]\n                         \n         1, Nathibai Thackersey Road, Mumbai - 20         ]\n\n    3]   The Regional Director,                           ]\n         National Council for Teacher Education           ]\n           \n\n\n         Western Regional Committee                       ]\n        \n\n\n\n         Manus Bhavan, Shamla Hill, Bhopal, M.P           ].... Respondents.\n\n                                ALONGWITH\n                       WRIT PETITION NO.6108 OF 2009\n\n\n\n\n\n         Arihant Education Foundation's                   ]\n         Arihant College of Education (B.Ed. College,)    ]\n         Through the President \/ Trustee                  ]\n         registered under the Bombay Public Trust         ]\n\n\n\n\n\n         Act, and also the society registered under the   ]\n         Societies Registration Act, 1860 having their    ]\n         office \/ college  at Plot No.569\/1, D.P. Road    ]\n         Todkar Complex, Bibavewadi, Kondhwa Road         ]\n         and Parshwa Vihar, Vadgaon Budruk,               ]\n         Near Suncity, Opp. Shahu Bank, Dist Pune         ]...Petitioners\n\n              Versus\n\n\n\n\n                                                   ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:50:51 :::\n                                        5\n\n    1]   The State of Maharashtra                         ]\n         Through the Secretary, Higher Education          ]\n          Mantralaya, Mumbai 32                           ]\n\n\n\n\n                                                                           \n    2]   The Registrar,                             ]\n\n\n\n\n                                                   \n         Pune University, Ganeshkhind, Pune 411 007 ]\n\n    3]   The Regional Director,                           ]\n         National Council for Teacher Education           ]\n\n\n\n\n                                                  \n         Western Regional Committee                       ]\n         Manus Bhavan, Shamla Hill, Bhopal, M.P           ].... Respondents.\n\n\n\n\n                                        \n                               ALONGWITH \n                       WRIT PETITION NO.6122 OF 2009\n                          \n         Samarath Shaikshanik Samajik &                   ]\n         Sanskurutik Pratishthan's Samarath               ]\n                         \n         Shikshanshastra Mahavidyalaya                    ]\n         (B.Ed. (M) College,)                             ]\n         Through the President \/ Trustee                  ]\n         registered under the Bombay Public Trust         ]\n           \n\n\n         Act, and also the society registered under the   ]\n        \n\n\n\n         Societies Registration Act, 1860 having their    ]\n         office at Dhule, Katkade Naghar, Satpur,         ]\n         Tal. Nashik, Dist Nashik                         ]...Petitioners\n\n\n\n\n\n              Versus\n\n    1]   The State of Maharashtra                         ]\n         Through the Secretary, Higher Education          ]\n          Mantralaya, Mumbai 32                           ]\n\n\n\n\n\n                                                    ]\n    2]   The Registrar,                             ]\n         Pune University, Ganeshkhind, Pune 411 007 ]\n\n    3]   The Regional Director,                           ]\n         National Council for Teacher Education           ]\n         Western Regional Committee                       ]\n         Manus Bhavan, Shamla Hill, Bhopal, M.P           ].... Respondents.\n\n\n\n                                                   ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:50:51 :::\n                                               6\n\n\n    Mr.R A Dada, Senior Advocate, along with Mr C K Thomas i\/by M\/s. C K \n    Thomas & Co. for the Petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.5884\/09, 5963\/09, \n\n\n\n\n                                                                                   \n    5964\/09, 5975\/09, 6108\/09 and 6122\/09.\n\n\n\n\n                                                           \n    Mr.Girish Kulkarni i\/by Mr Sandeep Waghmare  for the Petitioner in Writ \n    Petition No.5886 of 2009.\n\n    Mr. B V Phadnis a\/w Mr R Rodrigues for the Respondent No.2 in Writ \n\n\n\n\n                                                          \n    Petition Nos.5884\/09 and 5886\/09\n\n    Mr. V P Malwankar, AGP, for the Respondent No.1.\n\n\n\n\n                                              \n    Mr Rahul Matkari i\/by Mrs.M G Kulkarni for Respondent No.2 in Writ \n    Petition Nos.5963\/09, 5964\/09, 5975\/09, 6108\/09 and 6122\/09\n                               \n    Mr Uday Warunjikar for the NCTE.\n                              \n                                            CORAM : S B MHASE &\n                                                    R M SAVANT, JJ.\n<\/pre>\n
                                            DATE  :  30th July 2009<\/p>\n
    JUDGMENT : PER R M SAVANT J.\n<\/p>\n
    1.           Rule. Rule with the consent of the parties made returnable <\/p>\n
    forthwith. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.\n<\/p>\n
    2.           The above Petitions have been filed against the 1st Respondent <\/p>\n
    seeking a direction to forthwith grant necessary permission and affiliation <\/p>\n
    to the Petitioners to start B.Ed. Colleges for conducting the B.Ed. Course <\/p>\n
    to   the   Petitioners,   who   are   having   Recognition   Certificates   from   the <\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:50:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 7<\/span><\/p>\n
    NCTE.   Since   the   above   Petitions   involve   common   question,   they   are <\/p>\n
    heard and decided together.  For the sake of convenience the facts in Writ <\/p>\n
    Petition No.5886 of 2009 would be referred to.\n<\/p>\n
    3.            The Petitioner No.1 in the said Writ Petition No.5886 of 2009 <\/p>\n
    is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and also <\/p>\n
    a   trust   registered   under   the   Bombay   Public   Trust   Act,   1950.     The <\/p>\n
    Petitioner No.1 claims to run several schools, high schools, arts, sicence, <\/p>\n
    commerce college, including professional colleges such as BAMS, B.SC.\n<\/p>\n
    I.T.     The   Petitioner   No.1   claims   to   be   a   minority   institution   being <\/p>\n
    dedicated to the welfare of minority sector.  The Petitioner No.1 applied <\/p>\n
    to the Respondent No.3 for grant of Recognition Certificate to start B.Ed <\/p>\n
    course with annual intake of 100 candidates from the year 2009-2010.\n<\/p>\n
    The Petitioners claim to have complete infrastructure for starting the said <\/p>\n
    course   in   the   Petitioner   No.2-Institution.     The   said   application   of   the <\/p>\n
    Petitioner No.1 was considered by the Respondent No.3 and vide its order <\/p>\n
    dated   26.11.2008   the   Respondent   No.3   granted   the   said   recognition <\/p>\n
    certificate to the Petitioner No.1   to start B-Ed course for the academic <\/p>\n
    year   2009-2010.     In   so   far   as   Minority   Educational   Institutions   are <\/p>\n
    concerned, the Head Office of Respondent No.3 – NCTE, it appears, had <\/p>\n
    issued a circular dated 3.2.2008 to all its Regional Branches including the <\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:50:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                                8<\/span><\/p>\n
    Third Respondent herein thereby issuing directions that the Applications <\/p>\n
    from   minority   educational   institution,   which   are   formally   declared   as <\/p>\n
    minority   and   who   have   submitted   their   applications   to   the   Regional <\/p>\n
    Committee before cut of date i.e. 31-10-2008, may be considered for the <\/p>\n
    academic year 2009-2010, even from the States for which a ban has been <\/p>\n
    imposed to consider the applications for the academic year 2009-2010 in <\/p>\n
    view of the recommendations of the respective State Governments\/Union <\/p>\n
    Teritories   Administrations.     It   appears   that   similar   Recognition <\/p>\n
    Certificates   have   been   issued   to   the   Petitioners   in   the   companion <\/p>\n
    Petitions.\n<\/p>\n
    4.           The   Petitioners   thereafter   submitted   the   said   recognition <\/p>\n
    certificate to the Respondent No.2 i.e the University of Mumbai which in <\/p>\n
    turn forwarded the said Application of the Petitioners to the  Respondent <\/p>\n
    No.1   vide   its   letter   dated   29-12-2007.   That   the   Respondent   No.2   has <\/p>\n
    forwarded the application of the Petitioners to the Respondent No.1 was <\/p>\n
    informed to the Petitioners by the Respondent No.2 by its letter dated <\/p>\n
    3-1-2008.     Since  the   Petitioners  could  not   get   permission   from   the   1st <\/p>\n
    Respondent within the time frame prescribed, the 2nd  Respondent by its <\/p>\n
    letter dated 24-2-2009 informed the Petitioners that one third amount of <\/p>\n
    affiliation fee will be refunded to the Petitioners as per the rules in due <\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:50:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 9<\/span><\/p>\n
    course.  The Petitioners claimed to have all the necessary infrastructure in <\/p>\n
    place   in   so   far   as   Petitioner   No.2     is   concerned   and   have   also   the <\/p>\n
    employees including teaching and non-teaching staff   as per the norms <\/p>\n
    prescribed by the Respondent No.3.  The Petitioners in view of the non-\n<\/p>\n
    receipt of the permission from the 1st Respondent issued two reminders to <\/p>\n
    the   Respondent   No.1   dated   10-6-2009   and   18-6-2009   requesting   the <\/p>\n
    Respondent No.1 to do the needful and issue letter of approval at the <\/p>\n
    earliest   so   that   affiliation   could   be   granted   by   the   2nd  Respondent <\/p>\n
    University   and   the   admission   for   academic   year   2009-2010   could   be <\/p>\n
    started.  The Petitioners also claim to have addressed a request letter to <\/p>\n
    the Hon’ble Cabinet Minister of the Department of Higher & Technical <\/p>\n
    Education, Government of Maharashtra.   Upon receiving no response to <\/p>\n
    the said letter, the Petitioners have filed the instant Petition.\n<\/p>\n
    5.            In   so   far   as   other   Petitions   are   concerned,   similar <\/p>\n
    reminders\/letters have also been addressed by the Petitioners in the said <\/p>\n
    companion writ petitions.\n<\/p>\n
    6.            In so far as the Petitioners above named are concerned, it is <\/p>\n
    the contentions of the Petitioners that they are entitled to establish an <\/p>\n
    educational institution of their choice on account of the minority status.\n<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:50:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                               10<\/span><\/p>\n
    The Petitioners relying upon the circular dated 3.2.2008 issued by the <\/p>\n
    Head Office of  the 3rd  Respondent NCTE which circular inter alia lays <\/p>\n
    down that the applications from Minority Educational Institution which <\/p>\n
    are formally declared  as such and which submitted their applications to <\/p>\n
    the Regional Committee before cut of dated 31-10-2008 may be consider <\/p>\n
    for   such   courses   for   which   ban   has   been   imposed   to   consider   the <\/p>\n
    applications   for   the   academic   year   2009-2010   in   view   of   the <\/p>\n
    recommendations of the respective State Governments\/Union Territories.\n<\/p>\n
    It is the contention of the Petitioners that in the light of the observations <\/p>\n
    of the NCTE it is incumbent upon the 1st  Respondent to forthwith grant <\/p>\n
    approval letter in favour of the Petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
    7.           It is the contention of the Petitioners in the above Petition as <\/p>\n
    well   as in the companion matters that in view of the provisions of the <\/p>\n
    NCTE Act 1993 once the NCTE has granted recognition certificate, it is <\/p>\n
    mandatory   on   the   Respondent   Nos.1   and   2   to   grant   permission   and <\/p>\n
    necessary   affiliation   for   the   B.Ed   Colleges   to   be   run   by   them.   The <\/p>\n
    Petitioners have principally relied upon the provisions ofr the NCTE Act, <\/p>\n
    1993 and the judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2006(9) SCC 1 in <\/p>\n
    the matter of  State of Maharashtra v\/s. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan <\/p>\n
    Shastra Mahavidalaya and ors in support of their submissions.\n<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:50:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                               11<\/span><\/p>\n
    8.            On behalf of the State Government affidavit in reply has been <\/p>\n
    filed by one Sadashiv Shivdas, Joint Secretary to the Government, Higher <\/p>\n
    and   Technical   Education   Department,   Government   of   Maharashtra.     It <\/p>\n
    has been stated in the said affidavit that requirement of the teachers is <\/p>\n
    about 8000 per year whereas the intake capacity  the B Ed colleges which <\/p>\n
    have   been   sanctioned   is   about   40000   ,   and   therefore   Hon’ble   Chief <\/p>\n
    Minister   of   the   State   had   written   D.O   letter   dated   11-7-2006   to   the <\/p>\n
    Hon’ble Minister, Human Resource Development, Government of India, <\/p>\n
    New Delhi requesting them to direct the NCTE authorities not to issue <\/p>\n
    any   permission     for   opening   of   new   B.Ed   Colleges   without   due <\/p>\n
    deliberation with the State authorities.\n<\/p>\n
    9.            It has further been stated in the said affidavit that by letter <\/p>\n
    dated 21-11-2008, the Regional Director, Western Regional Committee, <\/p>\n
    NCTE, Bhopal was directed by the Member Secretary, NCTE, New Delhi <\/p>\n
    not to consider any application   for B.Ed Course for the academic year <\/p>\n
    2009-2010   from   the   State   of   Maharashtra   and   all   such   applications <\/p>\n
    should be returned along with processing fees and other documents to <\/p>\n
    the Institution concerned. The affidavit further goes on to state that there <\/p>\n
    are already 469 B Ed Colleges in existence in Maharashtra and the intake <\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:50:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                              12<\/span><\/p>\n
    capacity presently of  all the  colleges is approximately  50,000  students <\/p>\n
    every year whereas the requirement is only of 8,000 teachers per year in <\/p>\n
    the State. It is further stated in the said affidavit that to avoid further <\/p>\n
    unfortunate   events   of   unemployment,   mal-practices,   frustration   of <\/p>\n
    trained   graduates,   the   State   Government   thought   it   fit   not   to   grant <\/p>\n
    further permission to B Ed Colleges.       The affidavit further goes on to <\/p>\n
    state   that   issuing   permission   without   taking   into   consideration   the <\/p>\n
    existing intake capacity will create imbalance between supply of trained <\/p>\n
    graduate teachers and requirement in the school.  It is further stated that <\/p>\n
    if excess permission is given for starting new B Ed Colleges then there is <\/p>\n
    possibility   of   law   and   order   situation   arising   on   account   of <\/p>\n
    unemployment of the trained graduates. It is therefore stated that in view <\/p>\n
    of   the   aforesaid   reasons   the   State   Government   has   not   granted <\/p>\n
    permission to the Petitioners to start B Ed college.\n<\/p>\n
    10.          We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.  On behalf <\/p>\n
    of the Petitioners, the principal submission is that once the Respondent <\/p>\n
    No.3 has granted recognition certificate, it is not open for the Respondent <\/p>\n
    No.1 to refuse permission to the Petitioners to start the B Ed college.  The <\/p>\n
    learned counsel for the Petitioners placed reliance on the scheme of the <\/p>\n
    NCTE Act, 1993 which had come up for consideration before the Apex <\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:50:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  13<\/span><\/p>\n
    Court   in   the   Judgment   of   the   Sant   Dnyaneshwar   Shikshan   Shastra <\/p>\n
    Mahavidalaya (Supra).   It is submitted on behalf of the Petitioners that <\/p>\n
    final authority for starting B Ed College is the NCTE and it is therefore <\/p>\n
    neither   open   to   the   State   Government   nor   the   Respondent   No.2 <\/p>\n
    University to consider local condition or apply its policy to refuse such <\/p>\n
    permission.   In   fact   it   is   contended   that   the   State   Government   has   no <\/p>\n
    power to over rule the decision of the NCTE, and therefore inaction on <\/p>\n
    the   part   of   the   State   Government   or   refusal   on   the   part   of   the   State <\/p>\n
    Government to grant permission to the Petitioners to start B Ed college is <\/p>\n
    contrary   to   law.   The   learned   counsel   for   the   Petitioners     drew   our <\/p>\n
    attention to the various Paras of the judgment cited supra in that behalf.\n<\/p>\n
    11.           On   the   other   hand   it   is   contended   on   behalf   of   the <\/p>\n
    Respondent No.1 that the opinion expressed by the State Government is <\/p>\n
    necessary to be considered by the NCTE whilst deliberating whether the <\/p>\n
    recognition   certificate   ought   to   be   granted   or   not   to   a   particular <\/p>\n
    institution.  It is further contended on behalf of the Respondent No.1 that <\/p>\n
    considering   the   present   intake   capacity   of   the   existing   B   Ed   colleges <\/p>\n
    which   is   about   50,000   and   also   considering   the   requirement   which   is <\/p>\n
    about 80,000 teachers, the State Government thought it fit not to grant <\/p>\n
    any   permission   for   opening   of   any   new   B   Ed   college.     The   learned <\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:50:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                                14<\/span><\/p>\n
    counsel for the Respondent No.1, therefore, submitted that though the <\/p>\n
    Respondent   No.3   has   granted   recognition   certificate,   the   State <\/p>\n
    Government still has a role to play in the matter of granting of permission <\/p>\n
    to start a new B Ed College.\n<\/p>\n
    12.           The   learned   counsel   for   the   Respondent   No.2   University <\/p>\n
    submitted that the Respondent No.2 University has no objection to grant <\/p>\n
    affiliation provided permission is granted by the Respondent No.1 and in <\/p>\n
    fact the Respondent No.2 has submitted the papers to the Respondent <\/p>\n
    No.1 for necessary approval.\n<\/p>\n
    13.           It is pertinent to note that in each of the above Petitions the <\/p>\n
    Petitioner   has   a   recognition   order   from   the   NCTE,   the   concerned <\/p>\n
    Universities have also forwarded the papers to the State Government and <\/p>\n
    it is the State Government which is not taking any decision as regards <\/p>\n
    grant   of   permission   to  the   Petitioners   and  affiliation   to   the   concerned <\/p>\n
    Universities. As mentioned herein above the State Government has filed <\/p>\n
    affidavit   in   Writ   Petition   No.5884   of   2009.     The   stand   of   the   State <\/p>\n
    Government   in   the   said   affidavit   has   been   referred   to   earlier   in   this <\/p>\n
    judgment.     The   stand   of   the   State   Government   is,   therefore,   that   the <\/p>\n
    permission cannot be granted to the Petitioners in view of the fact that <\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:50:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                                     15<\/span><\/p>\n
    the State Government is of the opinion that already intake capacity of the <\/p>\n
    existing B Ed colleges is far beyond the requirement of   teachers in the <\/p>\n
    State.\n<\/p>\n
    14.            It   is   therefore   required  to  be   considered  whether  the   State <\/p>\n
    Government can refuse permission on the alleged policy mentioned in the <\/p>\n
    affidavit.  In the judgment cited supra wherein the issue was as regards <\/p>\n
    granting of no objection or refusing to grant affiliation by the University <\/p>\n
    examining body in the matter of the B Ed colleges, the Apex Court has <\/p>\n
    held on consideration of the provisions of NCTE Act and considering that <\/p>\n
    the   said   Act   is   an   act   of  Parliament   referable   to   Entry   66   of   List   I   of <\/p>\n
    Schedule VIII.  The Apex Court has held that the final authority under the <\/p>\n
    said   Act   lies   with   the   NCTE   and   the   NCTE   cannot   be   deprived   of   its <\/p>\n
    authority   or   power   in   taking   appropriate   decision   under   the   said   Act <\/p>\n
    irrespective   of   absence   of   no   objection   certificate   by   the   State <\/p>\n
    Government\/Union   Territories.     It   has   been   held   that   the   State <\/p>\n
    Government   can   not   refuse   the   permission   on   the   basis   of   policy <\/p>\n
    considerations.     It   has   also   been   held   by   the   Apex   Court   in   the   said <\/p>\n
    judgment that the State Government has no power to refuse permission <\/p>\n
    or over rule the decision of the NCTE.   The relevant paras of the said <\/p>\n
    judgment are reproduced herein under :-\n<\/p>\n
                                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:50:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                   16<\/span><\/p>\n
     63.           In   the   instant   case,   admittedly,   Parliament   has <\/p>\n
     enacted the 1993 Act, which is in force. The preamble of the <\/p>\n
     Act   provides   for   establishment   of   National   Council   for
\n     Teacher Education (NCTE) with a view to achieving planned
\n     and   coordinated   development   of   the   teacher-education <\/p>\n
     sustem   throughout   the   country,   the   regulation   and   proper
\n     maintenance of norms and standards in the teacher-education <\/p>\n
     system and for matters connected therewith. With a view to
\n     achieving   that   object,   the   National   Council   for   Teacher <\/p>\n
     Education has been established at four places by the Central
\n     Government.   It   is   thus   clear   that   the   field   is   fully   and <\/p>\n
     completely occupied by an Act of Parliament and covered by
\n     Entry 66 of List I of Schedule VII. It is, therefore, not open for <\/p>\n
     the   State   Legislature   to   encroach   upon   the   said   field.\n<\/p>\n
     Parliament alone could have exercised the power by making
\n     appropriate law. In the circumstances, it is not open to the
\n     State Government to refuse permission relying on a State Act <\/p>\n
     or on “policy consideration.”\n<\/p>\n
     64.           Even   otherwise,   in   our   opinion,   the   High   Court
\n     was  fully   justified   in   negativing   the   argument   of   the   State
\n     Government   that   permission   could   be   refused   by   the   State
\n     Government   on  “policy  consideration”.   As  already  observed
\n     earlier,   policy   consideration   was   negatived   by   this   court   in
\n     Thirumuruga   Kirupananda   Turst   as   also   in   Jaya   Gokul
\n     Educational Trust.\n<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:50:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                   17<\/span><\/p>\n
     68.           In view of the fact, however, that according to us, <\/p>\n
     the final authority lies with NCTE and we are supported in
\n     taking   that   view   by   various   decisions   of   this   court,   NCTE, <\/p>\n
     cannot   be   deprived   of   its   authority   or   power   in   taking   an
\n     appropriate decision under the Act irrespective of absence on <\/p>\n
     no   objection   certificate   by   the   State   Government   \/   Union
\n     Territory.   Absence   or   non   production   of   NOC   by   the
\n     institution, therefore, was immaterial and irrelevant so far as <\/p>\n
     the power of NCTE is concerned.\n<\/p>\n
     74.           It is thus clear that the Central Government has <\/p>\n
     considered   the   subject   of   secondary   education   and   higer
\n     education at the national level. The Act of 1993 also requires
\n     Parliament to consider teacher-education system “throughout <\/p>\n
     the country”. NCTE, therefore, in our opinion, is expected to <\/p>\n
     deal  with   applications  for  establishing  new Bed  colleges  or
\n     allowing increase in intake capacity, keeping in view the 1993 <\/p>\n
     Act   and   planned   and   coordinated   development   of   teacher-
\n     education   system   in   the   country.   It   is   neither   open   to   the
\n     State   Government   nor   to  a  university   to  consider   the   local <\/p>\n
     conditions or apply “State Policy” to refuse such permission.
\n     In fact, as held by this court in cases referred to hereinabove,
\n     the State Government has no power to reject the prayer of an
\n     institution  or to overrule the decision of NCTE. The action of
\n     the State Government, therefore, was contrary to law and has
\n     rightly been set aside by the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:50:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                    18<\/span><\/p>\n
     75.           The   decision   relied   on   by   Vidharbha   Sikshan
\n     Vyawasthapak   Mahasangh   V.   State   of   Maharashtra<\/a>   has   no <\/p>\n
     application to the facts of the case. In that case, the power
\n     was with the State Government to grant or refuse permission <\/p>\n
     to open Bed college. Considering the fact that if permission
\n     would be granted, there would be large-scale unemployment, <\/p>\n
     it was decided by the State government not to allow new BEd
\n     colleges   to   be   opened.   It   was   held   by   this   court   that   such
\n     policy decision could not be said to be arbitrary or otherwise <\/p>\n
     unreasonable. The Court in that case was not concerned with <\/p>\n
     the power or authority of the State Government vis-a-vis the
\n     Central Government and the Act of Parliament. In the present <\/p>\n
     case, as the field was fully occupied by Entry 66 of List I of
\n     Schedule VII to the Constitution and Parliament has enacted
\n     the 1993 Act, it was not open to the enactment, as per the <\/p>\n
     decisions   of   this   court,   would   be   void   and   inoperative.   It <\/p>\n
     would  be unthinkable that if the State Legislature could not
\n     have   encroached   upon   a   field   occupied   by   Parliament,   it <\/p>\n
     could   still   exercise   power   by   executive   fiat   by   refusing
\n     permission under the “policy consideration”. The contention
\n     of the State Government, therefore, has to be negatived.\n<\/p>\n
     80.           In   our   opinion,   the   observations   that   the
\n     provisions   of   Sections   82   and   83   of   the   Maharashtra
\n     Universities Act are “null and void” could not be said to be
\n     correct. To us, it appears that what the High court wanted to
\n     covney was that the provisions of Sections 82 and 83 would
\n     not apply to an institution covered by the 1993 Act. As per <\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:50:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                                19<\/span><\/p>\n
                  the scheme of the Act, once recognition has been granted by
\n                  NCTE   under  section   14(6)   of   the   Act,   every   university <\/p>\n
                  (“examining   body”)   is   obliged   to   grant   affiliation   to   such
\n                  institution and Sections 82 and 83 of the University Act do <\/p>\n
                  not apply to such cases.\n<\/p>\n
    15.           In our view, therefore, considering the said judgment of the <\/p>\n
    Apex Court, the matter is no more res integra in so far as powers of the <\/p>\n
    NCTE under the said Act are concerned, and once the NCTE has granted <\/p>\n
    recognition order it is not open for the State Government to withhold the <\/p>\n
    permission on the ground of policy consideration. It would be pertinent <\/p>\n
    to note that the case sought to be made out by the Respondent No.1 State <\/p>\n
    Government in the above Petition was exactly the case sought to be made <\/p>\n
    out before the Apex Court in the Judgment cited (Supra).  The said case <\/p>\n
    has been negatived by the Apex Court in Paras 63 and 74 of the said <\/p>\n
    Judgment (Supra).  The Respondent No.1 has no other material than the <\/p>\n
    material   which   was   before   the   Apex   Court   in   the   year   2006.     It   is <\/p>\n
    therefore not open for the Respondent No.1 to withhold the permission <\/p>\n
    on the grounds stated in the affidavit.\n<\/p>\n
    16.           The learned AGP for the Respondent No.1 also sought to rely <\/p>\n
    upon the interim order passed by the Apex Court in the Petition(s) for <\/p>\n
    Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No (s).4243-4244\/2009  The said Appeals <\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:50:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                               20<\/span><\/p>\n
    have been filed against the judgment and order dated 07-01-2009 passed <\/p>\n
    by a Division Bench of this Court sitting at Nagpur in Writ Petition No.<\/p>\n
    2701\/2008.  By the said judgment, the Division Bench has set aside the <\/p>\n
    recognition\/permission granted by the Respondent No.3 herein in its 101 <\/p>\n
    to   109th  meetings   pertaining   to   the   State   of   Maharashtra   for <\/p>\n
    establishment of 291 new D Ed colleges\/courses.   By the interim order, <\/p>\n
    the   Apex   Court   has   directed   the   State   Government   to   allot   seats   for <\/p>\n
    admission to the students as per the scheme provided by the State.  The <\/p>\n
    interim   order   mentions   cancellation   of   the   recognition   of   the <\/p>\n
    Applicants\/Petitions before the Apex Court.\n<\/p>\n
    17.           In our view, the reliance placed by the learned AGP on the <\/p>\n
    said interim order of the Apex Court is misfounded, as the issue before <\/p>\n
    the Division Bench was as regards recognition\/permission granted to D <\/p>\n
    Ed colleges by the NCTE and not the B Ed colleges which is the subject <\/p>\n
    matter of the instant Petitions.  In our view, considering the judgment of <\/p>\n
    the   Apex   Court   cited   (Supra)   above   the   Petitions   are   required   to   be <\/p>\n
    allowed and are accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) of all <\/p>\n
    the Petitions. However, prayer clause (a) of the Writ Petiton No.5886 of <\/p>\n
    2009 is reproduced herein under :-\n<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:50:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                              21<\/span><\/p>\n
                “(a) that this Hon’ble Court be please to issue a writ
\n                of   mandamus   or   a   writ,   order   or   direction   in   the <\/p>\n
                nature   of   mandamus   thereby   directing   the
\n                Respondent   Nos.1   &   2   to   produce   the   relevant <\/p>\n
                records   and   after   considering   the   legality   and
\n                validity and propriety thereof this Hon’ble Court be <\/p>\n
                please   to   direct   the   Respondent   Nos.1   and   2   to
\n                forthwith   grant   the   necessary   permission   and
\n                affiliation to the Petitioners for starting a new B.Ed <\/p>\n
                College   at   Savarkar   Nagar,   Dist.   Thane   from <\/p>\n
                academic   year   2009-2010   as   recognized   by   the
\n                Respondent NO.3.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    Since we have allowed the Petitions on the Application of the judgment <\/p>\n
    of the Apex Court in Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidalaya, <\/p>\n
    we have not gone into the aspect as to whether the Petitioners who are <\/p>\n
    minority institutions are entitled to the reliefs in view of the directions of <\/p>\n
    the  Head Office of the NCTE. Needless to state that the Petitioners would <\/p>\n
    be entitled to admit the students for the academic year 2009-2010.  Rule <\/p>\n
    is accordingly made absolute to the aforesaid extent.\n<\/p>\n
         Sd\/-                                                          sd\/-\n    [R.M.SAVANT, J]                                               [S.B.MHASE, J]\n\n\n\n\n                                                            ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:50:51 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Gyanodaya Shikshan Pracharak … vs 2] The Registrar on 30 July, 2009 Bench: S.B. Mhase, R. M. Savant 1 lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5884 OF 2009 Gyanodaya Shikshan Pracharak Samiti’s ] Gyanodaya B.Ed. College ] through its Secretar\/Trustee ] a Public Trust […]<\/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":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-118156","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nGyanodaya Shikshan Pracharak ... vs 2] The Registrar on 30 July, 2009 - 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\/gyanodaya-shikshan-pracharak-vs-2-the-registrar-on-30-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gyanodaya Shikshan Pracharak ... vs 2] The Registrar on 30 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gyanodaya-shikshan-pracharak-vs-2-the-registrar-on-30-july-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-07-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-21T04:25:45+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=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gyanodaya-shikshan-pracharak-vs-2-the-registrar-on-30-july-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gyanodaya-shikshan-pracharak-vs-2-the-registrar-on-30-july-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gyanodaya Shikshan Pracharak … vs 2] The Registrar on 30 July, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-21T04:25:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gyanodaya-shikshan-pracharak-vs-2-the-registrar-on-30-july-2009\"},\"wordCount\":3415,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gyanodaya-shikshan-pracharak-vs-2-the-registrar-on-30-july-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gyanodaya-shikshan-pracharak-vs-2-the-registrar-on-30-july-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gyanodaya-shikshan-pracharak-vs-2-the-registrar-on-30-july-2009\",\"name\":\"Gyanodaya Shikshan Pracharak ... vs 2] The Registrar on 30 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-21T04:25:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gyanodaya-shikshan-pracharak-vs-2-the-registrar-on-30-july-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gyanodaya-shikshan-pracharak-vs-2-the-registrar-on-30-july-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gyanodaya-shikshan-pracharak-vs-2-the-registrar-on-30-july-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gyanodaya Shikshan Pracharak … vs 2] The Registrar on 30 July, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Gyanodaya Shikshan Pracharak ... vs 2] The Registrar on 30 July, 2009 - 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\/gyanodaya-shikshan-pracharak-vs-2-the-registrar-on-30-july-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gyanodaya Shikshan Pracharak ... vs 2] The Registrar on 30 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gyanodaya-shikshan-pracharak-vs-2-the-registrar-on-30-july-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-07-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-21T04:25:45+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":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gyanodaya-shikshan-pracharak-vs-2-the-registrar-on-30-july-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gyanodaya-shikshan-pracharak-vs-2-the-registrar-on-30-july-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gyanodaya Shikshan Pracharak … vs 2] The Registrar on 30 July, 2009","datePublished":"2009-07-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-21T04:25:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gyanodaya-shikshan-pracharak-vs-2-the-registrar-on-30-july-2009"},"wordCount":3415,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gyanodaya-shikshan-pracharak-vs-2-the-registrar-on-30-july-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gyanodaya-shikshan-pracharak-vs-2-the-registrar-on-30-july-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gyanodaya-shikshan-pracharak-vs-2-the-registrar-on-30-july-2009","name":"Gyanodaya Shikshan Pracharak ... vs 2] The Registrar on 30 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-07-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-21T04:25:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gyanodaya-shikshan-pracharak-vs-2-the-registrar-on-30-july-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gyanodaya-shikshan-pracharak-vs-2-the-registrar-on-30-july-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gyanodaya-shikshan-pracharak-vs-2-the-registrar-on-30-july-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gyanodaya Shikshan Pracharak … vs 2] The Registrar on 30 July, 2009"}]},{"@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\/118156","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=118156"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/118156\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=118156"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=118156"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=118156"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}