Delhi High Court – Orders
Saraswati Ptc College & Anr vs National Council For Teacher Education … on 25 March, 2026
Author: Jasmeet Singh
Bench: Jasmeet Singh
$~91
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 3841/2026
SARASWATI PTC COLLEGE & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Ms. Priti
Kumari, Mr. Pankaj Kumar Ray, Advs.
versus
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION & ANR.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Rupal, Adv. (appearance not
given)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH
ORDER
% 25.03.2026
1. This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India seeking the following prayers:-
“i. issue a writ of mandamus or any other suitable writ,
order or direction holding that the show cause notice dated
12.03.2026 issued by Regional Director, WRC in terms of
decision taken by WRC in its 439th Meeting held on 29th – 31st
October, 2025 be treated to be only the communication to
petitioner institution calling upon response of the institution
to various aspects mentioned in the show cause notice in
respect of PTC(D.El.Ed) course and permit the petitioner to
submit response within a period of 30 days; . . .”
2. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondents have issued a Show
Cause Notice dated 12.03.2026, wherein the operative portion reads as
under:-
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/04/2026 at 20:37:22
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/04/2026 at 20:37:22
3. This order is being passed in view of a similar order dated 17.04.2023
passed in W.P.(C) 3767/2023, covering the present issue. Based upon the said
order and using the same reasons and expressions, this order is being passed.
4. Mr. Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, raises a short grievance
with respect to invocation of the provisions of Section 17 of the National
Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (“1993 Act”). He submits that the
NCTE grants the recognition once it records its satisfaction that all
infrastructural facilities are in place, in accordance with the provisions of the
Act and the Regulations made thereunder. He further submits that in any
case after grant of recognition, if the NCTE wishes to verify any fact or
requires any other information, the same can always be communicated to the
concerned institution but in no case such a communication should be
described as under Section 17 of the 1993 Act.
5. He, therefore, submits that notice under Section 17 of the 1993 Act
causes prejudice to the institution and it creates impression to public at large,
that such an institution is ill maintained. He while referring to the nature of
the information mentioned in communication dated 12.03.2023 states that all
those documents were already submitted by the petitioners before the
recognition was granted to the petitioners. In any case, the petitioners is still
willing to refurnish those information.
6. Learned counsel further draws my attention to the judgment of the
Coordinate Bench dated 27.03.2023 titled B.R.T.T. College v. National
Council for Teacher Education passed in W.P.(C) 8635/2020 and connected
matters. The relevant paragraphs read as under:-
“15. If the provisions of Section 17 of the Act of 1993 are
considered in juxtaposition to the provisions of Sections 14 andThis is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/04/2026 at 20:37:22
15 of the Act, it would indicate that if the RC intends to proceed
for withdrawal of the recognition/permission so granted, it has
to record its prima facie opinion on the basis of some facts or
material which is available with it that necessitated action
under Section 17 of the Act of 1993. If the provision of Section
17 of the Act of 1993 and the first proviso are harmoniously
construed, the same would mean that before issuance of notice
for withdrawal, the RC has to record reason as to which of the
conditions stipulated under the Act, Regulation, Order, etc. is
found to be violated by the concerned institution.
16. There has to be distinction between issuing letter seeking
information from the institution simpliciter and notice under
Section 17 of the NCTE Act of 1993. All communications or
letters cannot, therefore, be made invoking Section 17 of the Act
of 1993, unless invocation of Section 17 is inevitable.
17. Any SCN without any application of mind or material will
not serve any fruitful purpose. On the other hand, it causes
unnecessary harassment for the institution and the credibility of
the institution becomes at stake, therefore, the “satisfaction”
test may not be strictly applicable at the stage of SCN, but at
least some material must exist apropos to the institution so that
the same can be replied to by the institution.
xxxx
26. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the decision with respect
to 316th and 325th meeting of RC are directed to be treated as
communications to each institution, calling upon them to submit
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/04/2026 at 20:37:22
their responses instead of the same being notices under Section
17 of the Act of 1993.”
7. A perusal of the said judgment clearly shows that the present Show
Cause Notice is contrary to the judgment and is only a document seeking
information from the petitioners.
8. For the said reasons, issue notice.
9. Mr. Rupal, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondents
and states that the petitioners are under an obligation to furnish the relevant
information asked by the NCTE and if the petitioners do not furnish the
information, then necessary consequences will have to follow. He states that
in any case, once the information so required is furnished by the petitioners,
the respondents will scrutinise the same and then invoke the power under
Section 17 of the 1993 Act for withdrawal of recognition, if found necessary.
10. He further draws my attention to the judgment of Union of India v.
Kunisetty Satyanarayana, (2006) 12 SCC 28 and more particularly
paragraph 13 which reads as under:-
“13. It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that
ordinarily no writ lies against a charge-sheet or show-cause
notice vide Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing
Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh [(1996) 1 SCC 327 : JT (1995)
8 SC 331] , Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse [(2004)
3 SCC 440 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 826 : AIR 2004 SC 1467]
, Ulagappa v. Divisional Commr., Mysore [(2001) 10 SCC
639] , State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma [(1987) 2 SCC 179 :
(1987) 3 ATC 319 : AIR 1987 SC 943] , etc.”
11. He also relies upon the judgment of the Gujarat High Court passed in
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/04/2026 at 20:37:22
P.M. Patel College of Education v. Sardar Patel University, 2021 SCC
OnLine Guj 151. The relevant paragraph reads as under:-
“64. Keeping in mind the above provisions, I am of the view that
the present petition cannot be allowed on the following
grounds. First, on the show-cause notice, the writ petition is not
maintinable and therefore, the judgment on which the petitioner
has relied upon would not squarely applicable to the facts of
present case. Mere a show-cause notice or notice itself does not
infringe the right of anyone. It is only when the decision is
taken, then the party can have any grievance against the said
order. No doubt, in a very rare and exceptional case, the High
Court quashes the show-cause notice if it is found without
jurisdiction or for some reason, it is wholly unreasonable. The
petition has not made out any such case or allegation against
the respondents. Under the circumstances, the writ petition is
not maintainable. Second, pending the petition, the admission
process has already over on 29.10.2020. Under the
circumstances, I am of the view that the present petition has
become infructuous. Under the circumstances, I am of the view
that it would not be advisable for this court to enter into the
merits and demerits of the case. In the decision in case of State
of Hariyana v. Krisna Rice reported in (1981) 4 SCC 148 : AIR
1982 SC 1106, the Apex Court has clearly laid down that once
the petition has become infructuous, the High Court should not
decide it on merits. Under the circumstances, I am of the view
that the petition does not require any further consideration andThis is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/04/2026 at 20:37:22
requires to be dismissed as having become infructuous. Third,
the appeal is provided against the order dated 4.5.2010. The
NCTE Act is complete code, it provids efficatious remedy The
writ is barred by alternative remedy.
12. The law with regard to issuance of writ against Show Cause Notices is
well settled. The Courts should refrain from interdicting the effect and
operation of the Show Cause Notices but in the present case, the judgment of
the Coordinate Bench dated 27.03.2023 has attained finality and it clearly
draws a distinction that a Show Cause Notice under Section 17 of the 1993
Act must be based on an application of mind by the respondents and a prior
satisfaction needs to be recorded that there are some materials which exist for
the institution to reply to.
13. The present Show Cause Notice shows that there is no application of
mind and except for a phrase “still deficient”, there is not other basis to
substantiate the deficiencies. The operative paragraph only calls for
information from the petitioners.
14. Though letter dated 12.03.2026 is nomenclatured as a Show Cause
Notice under Section 17 of the 1993 Act, a closer scrutiny prima facie seems
to suggest the notice is only seeking information from the petitioners.
15. The appropriate course, to my mind, would have been that after
submission of these documents, the respondents should have applied its mind
whether the document supplied still show deficiencies on the part of the
petitioners and thereafter issue a notice under Section 17 of the 1993 Act.
16. In the view of the aforesaid, the following directions are passed:-
(i) Let the Show Cause Notice dated 12.03.2023 be treated as only a
“communication” to the petitioners calling upon to furnish theThis is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/04/2026 at 20:37:22
relevant information.
(ii) The petitioners shall furnish the relevant information within a
period of three weeks.
(iii) The respondents after scrutinising the response to be made by
the petitioners shall examine the same and take a decision as to
whether Section 17 of the Act of 1993 is to be invoked or otherwise.
17. With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed of alongwith
pending application.
JASMEET SINGH, J
MARCH 25, 2026/AS
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/04/2026 at 20:37:22
