- (1.) THIS intra court appeal has been preferred against the order dated 24.5.2013 passed in S.B.Civil Contempt Petition No.144/2013.
(2.) WE have heard Ms.Shweta Pareek, learned counsel for the appellants. Shortly stated, the facts relevant for the purpose of disposing of the instant appeal are that the respondent, in its second round of litigation before this Court, had instituted S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.8236/2012 assailing the decision of the National Council for Teachers Education (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the NCTE'), of which the appellants herein are the Member Secretary and Regional Director respectively, taken in its 193rd Meeting held on 8-10.2.2012 rejecting its (respondent herein) application for starting B.Ed. Course as per the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2007. This Court by its judgment and order dated 26.9.2012 allowed the writ petition with the following operative directions:- "Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The decision taken by the respondent in the impugned minutes of 193rd Meeting of NCTE held on 8-10.2.2012, qua the petitioner Institution (Item No.193.20.3) is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the respondents to consider and decide the application of the petitioner Institution filed on 13.12.2007 for starting B.Ed., Course in accordance with the regulations of 2007 without reference to the State Government policy decision dated 17.11.2008 and 3.1.2009. The entire exercise be concluded within a period of one month, from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. " The respondent returned to this Court alleging deliberate non-compliance of the said directions with S.B.Civil Contempt Petition No.144/2013. Meanwhile, the NCTE preferred an appeal against the decision dated 26.9.2012 being D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.229/2013, which was disposed of on 23.5.2013 by leaving it at liberty to file a review petition before the learned Single Judge by taking note of its contention that very many pleas taken by it, had been left out of consideration while deciding the writ proceeding. Alongwith the aforementioned appeal, several other appeals preferred by it were also disposed of in identical lines. The Single Bench of this Court however, having regard to the averments in S.B.Civil Contempt Petition No.144/2013, by the order impugned, issued notice to the appellant No.1 to show cause as to why a contempt proceeding would not be initiated against her. Noticing as well that the appellant No.2 though had been granted time to file reply to the averments in the contempt petition, he had failed to do so, by the said order, he was required to remain present in the Court on the next date i.e.30.5.2013.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellants has argued that as the NCTE had been advised by this Court to prefer an application for review of the judgment and order dated 26.9.2012, the contempt proceeding is an abuse of the process of Court and the order impugned thus, is liable to be interfered with. To say the least, we are left wholly unpersuaded by this argument. Not only a bare reading of the order dated 23.5.2013 rendered, amongst others, in D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.229/2013 does not reveal that any such advice, as represented by the appellants, had been offered by this Court to the NCTE to file a review petition, we see no justification whatsoever to interfere with the order impugned.;