← Library
High Court of DelhiW.P.(C)/8889/2019

Shri Vimal Nath Shiksha Prashikshan Mahila Mahavidyalaya v. National Council For Teacher Education And ANR.

2020-01-22Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Shakdher2 pages

$~17 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 8889/2019 SHRI VIMAL NATH SHIKSHA PRASHIKSHAN MAHILA MAHAVIDYALAYA ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Mayank Manish with Mr. Ravi Kant, Advocates.

versus NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION AND ANR.

..... Respondents Through:

Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, Standing counsel with Ms. Niharika Rai, Advocates for respondents.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R D E R

% 22.01.2020 1.

The substantive prayers made in the writ petition are as follows:- " a. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Directions for Extending the date of the Submissions of the online application pursuant to public notice dated 20.05.2019 seeking recognition for the ITEP course; and/or b. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Directions for NCTE to process the application of the institution seeking recognition for the ITEP course on the basis of the Hard Copy of documents to be submitted with the Respondent No.02; and/or "

W.P.(C) 8889/2019

2.

It is the petitioner's case that the requisite fee has been deposited.

2.1 For this purpose, my attention has been drawn to pages 113 & 114 of the paper book.

3.

Ms. Dwivedi, who, appears on behalf of the respondents says that she has instructions to convey that if the fee as claimed by the petitioner has been received, the application of the petitioner for recognition of ITEP course shall be processed. 3.1 The statement of the counsel is taken on record. 4.

The writ petition is disposed of in terms of the statement of Ms. Dwivedi.

5.

Needless to add, the application will be processed subject to the verification of the assertions made therein and the contents of documents appended thereto.

6.

It is made clear that if any deficiency is found, the same will be pointed out to the petitioner and the petitioner will cure the same within the timeframe defined by the respondents. RAJIV SHAKDHER, J JANUARY 22, 2020 c W.P.(C) 8889/2019