1 W.P.Nos.26738/2025, 20234/2025, 18551/2025,

48057/2025, 48062/2025 & 48069/2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK

&

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT

WRIT PETITION No. 26738 of 2025

LATE SURENDRA PRATAP SHIKSHA SAMITI AND OTHERS

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri M.P.S.Raghuvanshi – Senior Advocate with Shri Mohd. Amir Khan - Advocate

for the petitioners.

Shri Ankur Mody – Additional Advocate General for the respondents No.1 and 2/

State.

Shri Rahul Yadav – Advocate for respondents No.3 and 4.

WRIT PETITION No. 20234 of 2025

VIDHYASUDHA WELFARE FOUNDATION SAMITI GWALIOR

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri R.B.S.Tomar - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Ankur Mody – Additional Advocate General for the respondents No.1 and 2/

State.

Shri Rahul Yadav – Advocate for respondents No.3 and 4.

WRIT PETITION No. 18551 of 2025

SMT. SHYAMA DEVI DEEN DAYAL BAHUDHESHIYA PRACHAR

PRASAR SAMITI GWALIOR AND OTHERS

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri R.B.S.Tomar - Advocate for the petitioners.

Shri Ankur Mody – Additional Advocate General for the respondents No.1 and 2/

State.

Shri Rahul Yadav – Advocate for respondents No.3 and 4.

2 W.P.Nos.26738/2025, 20234/2025, 18551/2025,

48057/2025, 48062/2025 & 48069/2025

WRIT PETITION No. 48057 of 2025

VIKASH JATAV AND OTHERS

Versus

THE JIWAJI UNIVERSITY AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Alok Kumar Sharma – Advocate for the petitioners.

Shri Tapan Kumar Trivedi – Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2.

WRIT PETITION No. 48062 of 2025

GIRRAJ NAGAR AND OTHERS

Versus

THE JIWAJI UNIVERSITY AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Alok Kumar Sharma – Advocate for the petitioners.

Shri Tapan Kumar Trivedi – Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2.

&

WRIT PETITION No. 48069 of 2025

EKTA AGARWAL (GOYAL ) AND OTHERS

Versus

THE JIWAJI UNIVERSITY AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Alok Kumar Sharma – Advocate for the petitioners.

Shri Tapan Kumar Trivedi – Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2.

ORDER

(Passed on this 4

th

day of February 2026)

Per: Justice Anand Pathak

Regard being had to the similitude of the issue involved, all the

petitions were heard analogously and decided by this common order. For

convenience's sake, facts of Writ Petition No.26738/2025 are taken into

3 W.P.Nos.26738/2025, 20234/2025, 18551/2025,

48057/2025, 48062/2025 & 48069/2025

consideration.

2. The present petition (Writ Petition No.26738/2025) under Article 226

of the Constitution is preferred by the petitioners seeking following reliefs:

(i)That, the impugned order dated 02.07.2025

(Annexure P/1) and proceedings dated 05.05.2025

(Annexure P/2) and 09.05.2025 (Annexure P/3) be

directed to be quashed.

(ii) That, respondent University be directed to

recommend for inclusion of name of petitioner

institutes for participation in the ongoing

counseling for B.Ed. course for the academic

session 2025-26 on their sanctioned seats/intake

in accordance with their order of recognition

granted by the NCTE. Accordingly, the State

Government may be directed to permit the

petitioner institute to participate in the ongoing

counseling and to grant the admission in

accordance with law.

(iii)That, other relief which is just and proper in the

facts and circumstances of the case may also be

granted.

3. It is the grievance of the petitioners that vide impugned order

dt.02.07.2025, the affiliation of the petitioners institution of B.Ed. Course for

the academic session 2025-26 has been put on hold on the basis of registration

of criminal case so also recommendation of the Standing Committee

dt.05.05.2025.

4. It is the submission of learned senior counsel for the petitioners that

recognition has already been granted to the petitioners' institution by NCTE

for running B.Ed. course vide recognition order dt.31.01.2017. Thereafter,

4 W.P.Nos.26738/2025, 20234/2025, 18551/2025,

48057/2025, 48062/2025 & 48069/2025

petitioner institution also applied for affiliation from respondent University,

which has been continued upto session 2024-25. For the academic session

2025-26, petitioners' institutions applied for affiliation before the respondent

University on which a team for inspection of the institutions was constituted.

Inspection report of the committee was submitted before the University which

was kept in the meeting dt.05.05.2025, on which date affiliation of the

petitioners' institution was kept on hold for want of clarification with respect

to recognition from the NCTE, Higher Education and STF. It is further

submitted that merely on the basis of registration of criminal case by the STF

against the petitioners college(s), their affiliation is kept on hold/rejected.

5.Learned counsel further submits that once the recognition has been

granted by the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (hereinafter

shall be referred to as the NCTE Act) by exercising powers under Section 14

of the NCTE Act, the respondents can not withhold/reject the affiliation. It is

also submitted that the action of the respondents to withhold the affiliation of

the petitioners' institutions on the ground of registration of criminal case is

untenable because such ground is not related to eligibility of students or

admission procedure. In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied

upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Rungta Engineering

College, Bhilai and another v. Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical

University and another (2015) 11 SCC 291 and Nawab Shah Alam Khan

College of Engineering v. Jawaharlal Nehru Technology University and

5 W.P.Nos.26738/2025, 20234/2025, 18551/2025,

48057/2025, 48062/2025 & 48069/2025

others (2019) 16 SCC 391.

6.Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent University submits that

Statute 27 Clause 10 lays down the mandatory procedure for inspection of

colleges for the purpose of grant or continuation of affiliation. Affiliation can

be granted only after inspection by a duly constituted committee and on the

basis of its recommendation. Committee was constituted which submitted its

report and the same was not satisfactory. It is further submitted that

respondents received letter dt.08.05.2025 from NCTE, the contents of which

were suspicious, therefore, asking its genuineness a letter was sent to NCTE

on 31.5.2025 but no response is received so far. It is also submitted that

criminal case has been registered by the STF, Bhopal against the petitioners

institutions and the investigation is going on. In such a situation, the action of

the respondents is just and proper. Learned counsel also relied upon the

judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Adarsh Shiksha Mahavidyalaya

v. Subhash Rahangdale – (2012) 2 SCC 425 in support of his submission.

7.Shri Ankur Mody, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for

the respondents/State supported the impugned action.

8.Petitioners/institutions are aggrieved by the order dt.02.07.2025 passed

by the Registrar Jiwaji University, whereby question of affiliation was

considered and rejected.

9.First and foremost ground mentioned in the impugned order is that

Special Task Force Bhopal (Police) has registered a case under Section 420,

6 W.P.Nos.26738/2025, 20234/2025, 18551/2025,

48057/2025, 48062/2025 & 48069/2025

467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC vide Crime No.6/2024, 7/2024, 8/2024, 9/2024,

10/2024 and 11/2024. Respondent University referred the letter dt.08.05.2025

of Assistant Inspector General of Police, STF, Police Headquarter, Bhopal,

vide Annexure J-1, in which this fact is categorically mentioned and petitioner

colleges are one of those colleges against whom criminal case is registered

and is under investigation. Once criminal case is registered for various

reasons, then this assumes importance while affiliation is being granted.

10.It was the submission of petitioners that NCTE has given them

recognition vide letter dt.31.01.2017. However, said recognition order is

subject to certain conditions which are enumerated in the aforesaid letter.

Conditions are as under :-

The institution shall comply with various other norms and

standards prescribed in the NCTE regulations, as amended from

time to time.

The institution shall make admissions only after it

obtains affiliation from the examining body in terms of

clause 8 (10) of the NCTE (Recognition Norms &

Procedure) Regulations, 2014.

The institution shall ensure that the required number of

academic staff for conducting the course is always in position.

The recognition is subject to fulfillment of other

requirements as may be prescribed by other regulatory

bodies like UGC, affiliating University/Body, State

Government etc. as applicable.

The institution shall submit to the Regional Committee a

Self – Appraisal Report at the end of each academic year along

with annual statement of accounts duly audited by a Chartered

Accountant.

7 W.P.Nos.26738/2025, 20234/2025, 18551/2025,

48057/2025, 48062/2025 & 48069/2025

11.Perusal of these conditions indicate that NCTE has given this

recognition order subject to fulfillment of other requirements as may be

prescribed by the other regulatory bodies like affiliating University as

applicable. Here, University made an inspection and found severe

irregularities. Therefore, exercising the power under the Statute 27, Clause 10

of Jiwaji University framed purportedly under different provisions of Madhya

Pradesh Vishwa Vidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973, it has been decided that physical

inspection report of colleges were not at all satisfactory. They were bereft of

necessary facilities including infrastructure.

12. One more glaring and important ground raised by the respondent

University in its reply is that when University sent a letter dt.28.04.2025 to

NCTE Delhi about the status of recognition of these colleges, then a letter

dt.08.05.2025 (vide Annexure P/8), signed by Under Secretary of NCTE was

received, in which it has been mentioned that recognition of these five

colleges are still in vogue. However, it is specific submission of respondent

University that this letter appears to be forged, therefore, on 31.05.2025

(Annexure R/2) Registrar Jiwaji University sent a letter to Member Secretary

NCTE, Delhi to clarify the position about their earlier letter dt.08.05.2025,

which according to University is a forged letter. Surprisingly, no response is

received by the respondent University from NCTE so far. Said letter

dt.31.5.2025 is placed by the respondent University as Annexure R/2 and

reasons assigned for treating the letter dt.08.05.2025 as suspicious are given

8 W.P.Nos.26738/2025, 20234/2025, 18551/2025,

48057/2025, 48062/2025 & 48069/2025

in said letter, which are as under :-

The strong suspicion is raised due to the following

discrepancies as they are not in consonance with the NCTE

Letter communication general norms/pattern.

(i)Since various FIR are registered against 5 B.ED. Institutions

U/s 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC respectively as Crime

No.07/2024, 08/2024, 09/2024, 10/2024 & 11/2024 in the S.T.F.

Unit Gwalior and Crime is under active investigation. A copy of

STF letter dt.08.05.2025 to University is attached herewith as

ANNEXURE J-1.

(ii)Thus on 28.04.2025 Jiwaji University, Gwalior through its

email ID jiwajiaffldcdc@gmail.com communicated letter

no.एफ/ससंबदद्धतत/2025/220 dt.28.04.2025 to the Director, NCTE, New

Delhi at email address recogination@ncte-india-org Whereby

seeking current Recognition status of these 5 B.ED. Institutions

who are seeking affiliation from the Jiwaji University, Gwalior for

the academic Session 2025-2026. A copy of the letter dt.28.04.2025

is attached herewith with proof of communication by University (2

pages) as ANNEXURE J-2.

(iii)In response to aforementioned letter dt.28.04.2025 Jiwaji

University, Gwalior on 09.05.2025 as its old email ID

jiwajidcdc@gmail.com received a letter no. Couf...22482/25, Date

9/5/25 allegedly signed by the Avar Sachiv NCTE, G-7, Dwarka,

Sector 10 on the Letter Head of WRC trough the email ID

ncteorbnewdelhi@gmail.com.

Contents reproduced of letter are reproduced in toto.

प्रतत,

शश्रीमतन क

कलसचचिव

,

जश्रीवतजश्री ववश वववददतलद ग वतललदर

ववषद- आपकके दवतरत मतसंगश्री गई 5 ककॉलकेजजों ककी मतन दतत सम बन द्धश्री

जतनकतररी दकेनके बतवत

त।

ससंदरर- पत्र क. एफ/ससंबदद्धतत/2025/220 ददनतसंक 28-04-2025

9 W.P.Nos.26738/2025, 20234/2025, 18551/2025,

48057/2025, 48062/2025 & 48069/2025

महहोदद,

उपरहोक त ववषद म

म ससचचित ककदत जततत हहै कक आपकके पत्र क

.

एफ/ससंबदद्धतत/2025/220 कके ससंबसंद्ध म

म जजन

5 ककॉलकेजजों ककी मतन दतत ससंबसंद्धश्री

जतनकतररी चितहरी गई हहै, उन सरश्री 5 ककॉलकेजजों ककी मतन दतत वतरमतन म

म आज

ददनतसंक तक जतररी हहै। एसटरीएफ इकतई नके जहो रश्री जतनकतररी हमतरके कतदतरलद सके

मतसंगश्री थश्री। वहो उपलब द्ध करत दरी गई हहै, ददद एसटरीएफ इकतई ग वतललदर जतसंचि कके

पश चितत इन ककॉलकेजजों कहो दहोषश्री पततत हहै तहो इनककी स

सचिनत आपकहो दके दरी जतवकेगश्री।

हस ततक्षर

अवर सचचिव 9.5.25

रतष षरीद अध दतपक लशिक्षत पररषद

जश्री-7 दवतररकत सकेक टर-10, नई ददल लरी

A copy of suspicious proof of email ID dispatching suspicious

letter dt.9-5-2025 is attached herewith (2 pages) as ANNEXURE

J-3.

(iv)On perusal of the suspicious letter dt.09.05.2025

ANNEXURE J-3, it is crystally evident that Letter Head is used is

of WRC, and it bears signature of NCTE Avar Sachiv. The pattern

in giving dispatch number is doubtful because it is not in a

pattern/mode in which the NCTE or WRC normally adopts while

making communications to other statutory authorities.

(v)To the best of the knowledge of Jiwaji University the WRC

or NCTE does not communicate to other statutory authorities in

vernacular HINDI unless as used in this suspicious letter is

concerned. As a routine course WRC or NCTE communicates in

English.

(vi)The NCTE or WRC uses email id with “ORG” as Domain.

To the best of the knowledge of Jiwaji University. The use of

Gmail has been abandoned by NCTE or WRC for last more than 10

years. Hence, perhaps email ID ncteorbnewdelhi@gmail.com may

not belong to NCTE or WRC.

(vii)Because the manner in which ANNEXURE J-3 has been

written leads to strong suspicion and gives reason to believe. That

it has not been issued by NCTE or WRC as the case may be.

10 W.P.Nos.26738/2025, 20234/2025, 18551/2025,

48057/2025, 48062/2025 & 48069/2025

Hence, it leads to invariable conclusion that it is a forged and

manufacture letter with or due to ulterior motive to give eye wash

ulteriorly to the Statutory Central/State Regulatory Authorities.

Therefore, respondents expressed the desire to lodge another FIR against

those petitioners who are found to have forged the letter.

13.Considering the contents of said letter, it appears that the University

rightly decided not to give affiliation to those commercial shops in the name

of imparting education. On one hand, they do not fulfill the conditions as

prescribed by affiliating body (which is part and parcel of recognition order),

and on the other hand, they are facing criminal investigation on serious

charges and all the more still trying to forge the letter of statutory authority.

Therefore, very cleverly petitioners colleges did not implead NCTE as party

respondent in the cause title just to avoid clarification from NCTE.

14.The judgments relied upon by the petitioners are of no help to them

because they move in different factual realm. So far as judgment of the Apex

Court in the case of Rungta Engineering College (supra) is concerned, it

was in respect of All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 vis-a-

vis Chhhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University Act, 2004. Here,

in the present case, Section 16 of the NCTE Act provides that affiliation can

only be granted once the institution concerned has obtained recognition from

the Regional Committee of NCTE under Section 14 or 15 of the NCTE Act.

The very recognition order of Regional Committee contemplates that said

permission is subject to fulfillment of requirement of affiliating body i.e.

11 W.P.Nos.26738/2025, 20234/2025, 18551/2025,

48057/2025, 48062/2025 & 48069/2025

University. Here, conditions are not being fulfilled. Therefore, University

rightly denied affiliation. Similarly, Nawab Shah Alam Khan College of

Engineering (supra) is also in respect of All India Council for Technical

Education Act, 1987.

15.Apex Court in the case of Adarsh Siksha Mahavidyalaya (supra)

discussed in detail about the necessity of well equipped and properly trained

teachers. Apex Court in para 87 of the aforesaid judgment, held in following

manner :-

87.As a sequel to the above discussion, we hold that the

impugned orders do not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting

interference by this Court. We also reiterate that:

(i) The Regional Committees established under Section 20

of the 1993 Act are duty-bound to ensure that no private

institution offering or intending to offer a course or training in

teacher education is granted recognition unless it satisfies the

conditions specified in Section 14 (3) (a) of the 1993 Act and

Regulations 7 and 8 of the Regulations. Likewise, no recognised

institution intending to start any new course or training in teacher

education shall be granted permission unless it satisfies the

conditions specified in Section 15(3)(a) of the 1993 Act and the

relevant Regulations.

(ii) The State Government / UT Administration, to whom a

copy of the application made by an institution for grant of

recognition is sent in terms of Regulation 7 (2) of the Regulations,

is under an obligation to make its recommendations within the

time specified in Regulation 7 (3) of the Regulations.

(iii) While granting recognition, the Regional Committees

are required to give due weightage to the recommendations made

by the State Government/UT Administration and keep in view the

observations made by this Court in St. Johns Teachers Training

Institute v. Regional Director, National Council for Teacher

Education (2003) 3 SCC 321 and National Council for Teacher

12 W.P.Nos.26738/2025, 20234/2025, 18551/2025,

48057/2025, 48062/2025 & 48069/2025

Education v. Shri Shyam Shiksha Prashikshan Sansthan (2011) 3

SCC 238, which have been extracted in the earlier part of this

judgment.

(iv) The recognition granted by the Regional Committees

under Section 14(3)(a) of the 1993 Act read with Regulations 7

and 8 of the Regulations and permission granted under Section

15(3)(a) read with the relevant Regulations shall operate

prospectively, i.e., from the date of communication of the order of

recognition or permission, as the case may be.

(v) The recognition can be refused by the Regional

Committee under Section 14(3)(b), in the first instance, when an

application for recognition is made by an institution. Likewise,

permission can be refused under Section 15 (3)(b).

(vi) If the recognition is refused under Section 14 (3)(b)

after affording reasonable opportunity to the applicant to make a

written representation, the concerned institution is required to

discontinue the course or training from the end of the academic

session next following the date of receipt of the order.

(vii) Once the recognition is granted, the same can be

withdrawn only under Section 17 (1) if there is a contravention of

the provisions of the Act or the Rules, or the Regulations, or

orders made therein, or any condition subject to which recognition

was granted under Section 14(3)(a) or permission was granted

under Section 15(3)(a).

(viii) The withdrawal of recognition becomes effective from

the end of the academic session next following the date of

communication of the order of withdrawal.

(ix) Once the recognition is withdrawn under Section 17

(1), the concerned institution is required to discontinue the course

or training in teacher education and the examining body is obliged

to cancel the affiliation. The effect of withdrawal of the

recognition is that the qualification in teacher education obtained

pursuant to the course or training undertaken at such institution is

not to be treated as valid qualification for the purpose of

employment under the Central Government, any State

Government or University or in any educational body aided by the

Central or the State Government.

13 W.P.Nos.26738/2025, 20234/2025, 18551/2025,

48057/2025, 48062/2025 & 48069/2025

(x) In view of the mandate of Section 16, no examining

body, as defined in Section 2(d) of the 1993 Act, shall grant 102 1

affiliation unless the applicant has obtained recognition from the

Regional Committee under Section 14 or permission for starting a

new course or training under Section 15.

(xi) While granting affiliation, the examining body shall be

free to demand rigorous compliance of the conditions contained in

the statute like the University Act or the State Education Board

Act under which it was established or the guidelines / norms

which may have been laid down by the examining body

concerned.

(xii) No institution shall admit any student to a teacher

training course or programme unless it has obtained recognition

under Section 14 or permission under Section 15, as the case may

be.

(xiii) While making admissions, every recognised

institution is duty bound to strictly adhere to para 3.1 to 3.3 of the

Norms and Standards for Secondary/Pre-School Teacher

Education Programme contained in Appendix-1 to the

Regulations.

(xiv) If any institution admits any student in violation of the

Norms and Standards laid down by the NCTE, then the Regional

Committee shall initiate action for withdrawal of the recognition

of such institution and pass appropriate order after complying

with the rules of natural justice.

(xv) The students admitted by unrecognised institution and

institutions which are not affiliated to any examining body are not

entitled to appear in the examination conducted by the examining

body or any other authorised agency.

(xvi) The students admitted by the recognised institutions

otherwise than through the entrance/eligibility test conducted in

accordance with the admission procedure contained in para 3.3 of

Appendix-1 of the Regulations are also not entitled to appear in

the examination conducted by the examining body or any other

authorised agency.

14 W.P.Nos.26738/2025, 20234/2025, 18551/2025,

48057/2025, 48062/2025 & 48069/2025

(xvii) The NCTE shall issue direction for mandatory

inspection of recognised institutions on periodical basis and all

the Regional Committees are duty bound to take action in

accordance with those directions.

(xviii) In future, the High Courts shall not entertain prayer

for interim relief by unrecognised institutions and the institutions

which have not been granted affiliation by the examining body

and/or the students admitted by such institutions for permission to

appear in the examination or for declaration of the result of

examination. This would also apply to the recognised institutions

if they admit students otherwise than in accordance with the

procedure contained in Appendix-1 of the Regulations.

These directions were given arising out of the Public Interest Litigation.

16.Apex Court reiterated the position later on in the case of State of

Rajasthan v. LBS B.Ed. College and others (2016) 16 SCC 110. It is the

duty of NCTE to follow the directions given by Apex Court in the judgment

rendered in the case of Adarsh Siksha Mahavidyalaya (supra), in the case

of LBS B.Ed. College (supra) and other pronouncements from time to time.

17.Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, on the basis of above

discussion, respondent University has adopted right approach in not

permitting these commercial shops to be run by granting them affiliation.

Accordingly, all the writ petitions are dismissed. If some students are

admitted by these colleges, then petitioners have to immediately refund the

amount of fees to them. Even otherwise, students may lodge civil/criminal

case against the colleges and its promoters in accordance with law.

18.So far as NCTE is concerned, it has to put its house in order and ensure

15 W.P.Nos.26738/2025, 20234/2025, 18551/2025,

48057/2025, 48062/2025 & 48069/2025

that any mischief may not be carried out on the name of NCTE because

NCTE is expected to proceed against petitioners' institutions as per Section 17

of the NCTE Act or any other provisions for withdrawal of recognition if

conditions are not fulfilled and if petitioners' institutions contravene the

provisions of the NCTE Act. Role of NCTE deserves improvement.

19.Some of the writ petitions (W.P.No.48057/2025, 48062/2025 and

48069/2025) are preferred at the instance of the students as the face of

litigation so that they may get the misplaced sympathy of this Court.

However, they chose wrong college without verifying the facts about its

affiliation etc. Therefore, they cannot get any relief. They are entitled to get

refund of their fees, not the continuation of course.

20.So far as petitioners institutions are concerned, they are saddled with

cost of Rs.25,000/- each. Therefore, petitioners of W.P.No.26738/2025,

20234/2025 and 18551/2025 will deposit Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five

Thousand) each as cost within thirty days in favour of Juvenile Justice

Fund having Saving Bank Account No.60411029562 of Bank of

Maharashtra, Branch Govindpura, Bhopal, IFSC Code MAHB0001988

(a statutory fund created for the welfare of juveniles) from the date of

certified copy of this order.

21.Interim orders as passed earlier, if any, stand vacated and the students

of petitioners institutions shall not be permitted to participate in the

examinations till affiliation is granted by the respondent University.

16 W.P.Nos.26738/2025, 20234/2025, 18551/2025,

48057/2025, 48062/2025 & 48069/2025

22.Accordingly, all the writ petitions are dismissed as indicated above.

23.A copy of this order be sent to the National Council of Teacher

Education, G-7, Sector – 10, Dwarka, Near Metro Station, New Delhi and to

National Council of Teacher Education, Western Regional Committee, Manas

Bhawan, Shyamla Hills, Bhopal for information and necessary action.

24.A copy of this order be placed in all the connected writ petitions.

(ANAND PATHAK) (ANAND SINGH BEHRAWAT)

JUDGE JUDGE

SP