TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the State Government had executive or policy power to insist on a no objection certificate for establishment of a teacher education institution despite the Central Act occupying the field; (ii) whether clauses 5(e) and 5(f) of the Regulations requiring a no objection certificate from the State or Union Territory for recognition or permission were within the rule-making power; (iii) whether refusal of recognition based on absence of a no objection certificate could stand.
Issue (i): whether the State Government had executive or policy power to insist on a no objection certificate for establishment of a teacher education institution despite the Central Act occupying the field.
Analysis: The Central legislation governed teacher education and conferred policy control on the Central Government, while the State Government's role was not to frame an independent policy on the subject. Once the field was covered by the Central Act, the State's executive power under Article 162 could not be exercised in derogation of that regime. A State policy forbidding new teacher training institutions could not override the statutory scheme, and in any event the record showed selective departures from that policy for extraneous reasons.
Conclusion: The State Government had no authority to enforce such a policy, and its decision refusing the no objection certificate was invalid and non est in law.
Issue (ii): whether clauses 5(e) and 5(f) of the Regulations requiring a no objection certificate from the State or Union Territory for recognition or permission were within the rule-making power.
Analysis: The enabling provision allowed the Council to regulate the form and manner of applications and to prescribe conditions for granting recognition, but not to impose a substantive precondition that made maintainability of an application depend on the discretion of the State Government. Requiring a no objection certificate effectively vested the State with a veto without any corresponding statutory duty or standards for decision-making. That travelled beyond the permissible scope of regulation-making and amounted to abdication of the Council's statutory function.
Conclusion: Clauses 5(e) and 5(f) were ultra vires and were struck down.
Issue (iii): whether refusal of recognition based on absence of a no objection certificate could stand.
Analysis: Since the State policy was unlawful and the regulatory requirement for a no objection certificate was invalid, the Regional Committee's refusal founded solely on that ground could not survive. The application had to be examined on its merits under the Act and Regulations, without treating the State's no objection certificate as a condition precedent.
Conclusion: The refusal of recognition on that ground was vitiated in law.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the impugned State policy and the regulatory provisions insisting on a no objection certificate were invalidated, and the recognition application had to be reconsidered on merits without insisting on such certificate.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a Central statute occupies the field and delegates only the power to regulate the form, manner, and lawful conditions of recognition, a delegated authority cannot impose a substantive State-government approval as a prerequisite that effectively confers a veto on the State.
TaxTMI 
