Madras High Court
Dharamamurthi Rao Bahadur ... vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 5 April, 2022
W.P.No.19918 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
W.P.No.19918 of 2019
Dharamamurthi Rao Bahadur Calavala Cunnan Chetty's
Hindu College, Pattabiram,
Chennai – 600 072.
Represented by its Honorary Secretary,
Mr.M.Venkateasaperumal ...Petitioner
Vs.
1. State Of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Principal Secretary.
Higher Education Department,
Fort St.Georte,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Director of Collegiate Education,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
3. The Joint Director of Collegiate Education,
Chennai Region, Saidapet,
Chennai – 600 015. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue
a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order issued
by the 1st Respondent State Government in GO(MS) No.89 dated 27.05.2019
Higher Education Department and quash the same in so far as it relates to the
status of the petitioner college as the minority education institution to a limited
period of five years from 2018-19 to 2022-23.
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.19918 of 2019
For Petitioner : Mr.RS.Jeevarathinam
for Basu.K.Balaiyanantham
For Respondents : Mr.D.Ravichander
Special Government Pleader.
ORDER
Read this order in conjunction with earlier order dated 25.03.2022 that
reads as follows:
“The issue raised in this writ petition is as to the
continuance of Minority Status granted to the Dharmamurthi
Rao Behadur Calavala Cunnan Chetty's Hindu College,
Pattabiram, vide G.O.(Ms).No.89 of Higher Education
Department, dated 27.05.2019. The Authority has granted
recognition of minority status only for a period of five years,
and the Institution challenges it on the ground that the Authority
ought not to have restricted the minority status for the limited
period.
2. Prima facie, this issue appears to be covered by a
decision of the First Bench of this Court, in Writ Appeal
SR.No.7173 of 2019 dated 13.08.2020, in the case of State of
Tamil Nadu Vs Syed Ammal Engineering College. Paragraph
Nos. 21 and 22 of the said decision is extracted hereunder:-
''21. The contention of the State that such restrictions on
the period of certification of minority status is nécessary to monitor
in our opinion also is not logically made out, inasmuch as, the State
can take appropriate steps if it finds any deviation in the status of
minority or otherwise of the institution for the limited purpose of
certification and recognition granted by it. However, the issuance of
the certificate for five years in the present case does not indicate any
reason not to continue it beyond five years. Even in the affidavit filed
in support of the appeal or before the learned single Judge, no
material was brought forth to even remotely suggest that the
institution had violated any regulation or norms so as to disentitle it
to continue to claim recognition as an institution having minority
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.19918 of 2019
status. This is a case where there is no such material and therefore,
there cannot be any justification for making a provision so as to limit
recognition. On the other hand, putting a limitation would not serve
any such purpose inasmuch as even during the pendency or
continuance of a certificate, http://www.judis.nic.in CMP.No.5028 of
2020 and WA.No.SR 7173 of 2019 the state is not denuded by the
power of withdrawing any such recognition if any violation is
established upon a due consideration of the facts by following the
procedure prescribed by law. There is no rationale decipherable in
restricting the period so as to connect it with the power of withdrawal
of recognition of the State Government. If the power of the State
Government can be exercised reasonably, there is no rational nexus
between the object of limiting the period of certification with the
object of exercising control or the power of withdrawal of
recognition. The status of minority of an institution and the power to
withdraw the recognition or certification though connected with each
other, are differently placed. The power of withdrawal of recognition
or certification is still there with the Government even if the
recognition or certification is for an unlimited period. Accordingly,
the limitation prescribed does not pass the test of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India or reasonableness as well. Thus, the
prescription of limitation of certification of minority rights
guaranteed under Article 30 of the Constitution of India may not be
permissible in these circumstances.
22. We say this because the rights under Part III of the
Constitution of India are there to protect existing rights. The
recognition of the status of the institution as a minority status does
http://www.judis.nic.in CMP.No.5028 of 2020 and WA.No.SR 7173 of
2019 not amount to conferment of a minority status and is rather a
recognition and acknowledgment of the existing minority status of an
institution. The existence, therefore, of such a fundamental right is
not dependent upon certification, but is dependent upon the
ingredients of the establishment and administration of an
educational institution, which, in the present case, has not been
disputed by the State at all.”
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.19918 of 2019
refers to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of
N.Ammad Vs. Manager, Emjay High School and Others,
reported in (1998) 6 SCC 674 and paragraphs 12,13,15 to 17
are extracted hereinbelow.
''12. Counsel for both sides conceded that there is no
provision in the Act which enables the Government to declare a
school as a minority school. If so, a school which is otherwise a
minority school would continue to be so whether the Government
declared it as such or not. Declaration by the Government is at best
only a recognition of an existing fact. Article 30(1) of the
Constitution reads thus:
''30. (1) All minorities, whether based on religion or language,
shall have the right to establish and administer educational
institutions of their choice.''
13. When the Government declared the School as a minority
school it has recognised a factual position that the School was
established and is being administered by a minority
http://www.judis.nie.in CMP.No.5028 of 2020 and WA.No.SR 7173 of
2019 community. The declaration is only an open acceptance of a
legal character which should necessarily have existed antecedent to
such declaration. Therefore, we are unable to agree with the
contention that the School can claim protection only after the
Government declared it as a minority school on 2-8-1994.
..
15. A Constitution Bench of seven Judges of this Court in
Kerala Education Bill, 1957, Re [AIR 1958 SC 956] has examined
the constitutional validity of the Bill which was the precursor to the
Act when the President of India had sought the advice of the Supreme
Court under Article 143 of the Constitution. One of the propositions
laid down by the said Constitution Bench in the said decision is
this: the right guaranteed under Article 30(1) is a right that is
absolute and any law or executive direction which infringes the
substance of that right is void to the extent of infringement. But the
absolute character of the right will not preclude making of
regulations in the true interests of efficiency or instruction,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.19918 of 2019
discipline, health, sanitation, morality, public order and the like, as
such regulations are not restrictions on the substance of the right
guaranteed by the Constitution.
16.The aforesaid proposition was approved by another
Constitution Bench of this Court in Sidhrajbhai Sabbaiv.State of
Gujarat [AIR 1963 SC 540 : 1962 Ker LT 135] and also by a nine-
Judge Bench of this Court in Ahmedabad St. Xavier's College
Societyv.State of Gujarat [(1974) 1 SCC 717].
17.Thus, the legal Position adumbrated in Kerala Education
Bill, Re [AIR 1958 SC 956] remains unchanged now.''
5. At request of Mr.D.Ravichander, learned Special
Government Pleader, list on 05.04.2022.”
2. This matter was adjourned to enable Mr.D.Ravichander to peruse the
decisions as aforesaid. Today, he fairly states that upon perusal thereof, the same
are applicable on all fours to the petitioner's case.
3. This writ petition is thus allowed and GO(MS) 89 dated 27.05.2019,
Higher Education Department stands quashed, qua condition of five years stated
therein, in regard to the minority status of the petitioner. No costs.
05.04.2022
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non speaking Order
nst/sl
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.19918 of 2019
DR. ANITA SUMANTH.J,
nst/sl
To
1. State Of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Principal Secretary.
Higher Education Department,
Fort St.Georte,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Director of Collegiate Education,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
3. The Joint Director of Collegiate Education,
Chennai Region, Saidapet,
Chennai – 600 015.
W.P.No.19918 of 2019
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.19918 of 2019
05.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
