W.P. No. 17740 of 2012. Case: Sri Teja Educational Society rep. by its Secretary, K. Venkateswara Rao and another Vs National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi Rep. by its Member Secretary and another. High Court of Andhra Pradesh (India)
| Case Number | W.P. No. 17740 of 2012 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. P. Shreyas Reddy for Mr. S. Sri Ram, Counsel and For Respondents: Mr. Ashish Samat for Mr. D. Madhava Rao, SC for NCTE |
| Judges | C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J. |
| Issue | Wealth-tax Act, 1957 - Section 18 (2A) |
| Citation | 2013 (3) ALD 379, 2012 (5) ALT 618 |
| Judgement Date | June 26, 2012 |
| Court | High Court of Andhra Pradesh (India) |
Order:
C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J., (At Hyderabad)
-
This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No. 2 in rejecting the application for grant of recognition to the second petitioner- College to impart education by starting D.El.Ed course vide 222nd Meeting, dated 09/10-05-2012, as illegal and arbitrary. The second petitioner made its application through online, for grant of permission for starting D.El.Ed course, to respondent No. 2 on 28-09-2011. This application was followed by hard copy application sent on 03-10-2011. On 29-12-2011, respondent No. 2 has returned the said application with certain objections. The second petitioner has resubmitted the application after purported compliance with the objections on 17-02-2012. Thereafter, show cause notice, dated 04-04-2012, which the second petitioner claims to have received on 12-04-2012, was issued by respondent No. 2 wherein 21 days time was given to the second petitioner, from the date of its issue, for making good the deficiencies. The second petitioner has resubmitted its application along with rectification defects report on 02-05-2012. On 09/10-05-2012, respondent No. 2 has rejected the said application. Questioning the said decision, the petitioners filed the present Writ Petition.
-
At the hearing, Mr. Shreyas Reddy, learned Counsel, representing Mr. S. Sri Ram, learned Counsel for the petitioners, advanced the following submissions:
(1) A perusal of the impugned decision would show that respondent No. 2 was mainly guided by the fact that the application of the second petitioner was received 28 days after the date of issue of show cause notice and that respondent No. 2 has completely misconstrued the phrase 'issue' and reckoned the period of 21 days from the date of dispatch of the show cause notice and not from the date of receipt of the notice by the second petitioner. In support of his submission that the phrase 'issue' should be construed as 'served', the learned Counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in The Commissioner of Wealth Tax and another v. M/s. Kundan Lal Behari Lal (1) AIR 1976 SC 1150.
(2) That the impugned rejection is purported to be based on totality of information and collective application of mind; that respondent No. 2 has failed to give any reasons, whatsoever, with reference to the compliance report filed by the second petitioner to the objections raised by it and that this decision, not being...
To continue reading
Request your trial