Pravatidevi Apang Shikshan Va Prashikshan Mandal Khedi (Bk) Through Chairman Shri S T Patil v. The Regional Director, National Council For Teachers Education (Ncte) And ORS

2025:BHC-AUG:31705

IN THE JUDICATURE OF HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 960 CONT. PETITION NO. 22 OF 2011 IN WP/7655/2009 Pravatidevi Apang Shikshan Va Prashikshan Mandal Khedi (bk) Through Chairman Shri S T Patil

VERSUS

The Regional Director, National Council For Teachers Education (ncte) And Ors ...

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Vivek Patil h/f Ms. Mahajan Surekha P. ...

CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.

Dated : November 18, 2025.

PER COURT :- 1.

Heard.

2.

The petitioner has filed the present Contempt Petition alleging disobedience of the order dated 03/08/2010 by respondents No.1 and 2. 3.

In the Contempt Petition, it is stated that this Court had directed the authorities to conduct an inspection to ascertain whether the petitioner had the requisite infrastructure under law for starting the B.Ed. College. It is further stated that in the year 2006, the proposal for inspection of the new B.Ed. College was forwarded, but the same was rejected by the NCTE, WRC. The appeal filed before the NCTE, New Delhi was also rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition. Pursuant to the directions of this Court dated 03/08/2010, the petitioner's application was again forwarded to the NCTE, New Delhi.

4.

However, in the synopsis and list of dates annexed to the petition, it is stated that the inspection report clearly indicates that the petitioner has Page 1 of

960 CP 22-2011 constructed the building of the institution in accordance with the NCTE norms.

5.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he is unable to obtain instructions in the matter as regards compliance. 6.

There is an inordinate delay in prosecuting the present petition. The Contempt Petition is of the year 2011, and notice to respondent No.1 has not yet been served. In such circumstances, no useful purpose would be served by continuing with the present Contempt Petition. 7.

The Contempt Petition accordingly stands dismissed. ( ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. ) vj gawade/-.

Page 2 of