Madras High Court
The State Of Tamil Nadu vs The Secretary on 5 February, 2025
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
1 W.A.(MD)NO.253 OF 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 05.02.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
W.A.(MD)No.253 of 2021 AND
C.M.P.(MD)No.805 of 2021
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Higher Education Department,
St. George Fort,
Chennai – 9.
2. The Directorate of Collegiate Education,
College Road,
Chennai – 6. ... Appellants / Respondents
Vs.
The Secretary,
Sri.S.Ramasamy Naidu Memorial College,
Sattur,
Virudhunagar District. ... Respondent / Petitioner
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent,
to set aside the judgment dated 07.01.2016 in W.P.(MD)No.283 of
2016 on the file of this Court.
For Appellants : Mr.T.Amjadh Khan
For Respondent : Mr.K.Ragatheesh Kumar,
for M/s.Isaac Chambers.
***
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
2 W.A.(MD)NO.253 OF 2021
JUDGMENT
(Order of the Court was delivered by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)
Heard both sides.
2. The only question that calls for consideration is whether the
Government was justified in restricting minority status of the
respondent college for a period of five years. The Government had
issued G.O.Ms.No.243, Higher Education (E1) Department dated
16.07.2007 recognising the minority status of the respondent college
for a period of five years, therefrom. This restriction on the period of
recognition was challenged in W.P.(MD)No.283 of 2016. The
learned single Judge vide order dated 07.01.2016 allowed the writ
petition in the following terms:-
“5.Accordingly, the portion of G.O.Ms.No.243,
Higher Education (E1) Department dated 16.07.2007,
limiting the minority status period is quashed and the
minority status given to the petitioner's college will hold
good without any restriction as to period. However, this
Court could not preclude the Government to take action if
there is any change in the constitution of educational
agency or if the institution is run contrary to the
Memorandum of Association/Bye-laws of the Society.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. The Government questions the said order.
4. We are of the view that the issue raised in this writ appeal in
no longer res integra. The learned counsel appearing for the
respondent draws our attention to the decision reported in 2023 (5)
CTC 529 (Justice Basheer Ahmed Sayeed College for women
(Autonomous) V. State of Tamil Nadu). The first question framed
for consideration was whether the minority status can be granted
only for a limited period. The Hon'ble Division Bench answered the
issue in the following terms:-
“ 11.5. The scheme of the Act of 2004 no way
envisages grant of Minority Status for a temporary
period or for a restricted period. The grant of Minority
Status is not for a particular tenure. The Minority Status
of an Institution, accorded by the Competent Authority
or the Commission, would subsist until the Commission
cancels the same, as provided under Section 12-C of the
Act of 2004.”
5. In the same issue, the earlier Hon'ble Division Bench vide
order dated 13.08.2020 made in C.M.P.No.5028 of 2020 in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.SR.No.7173 of 2019 had taken the very same issue. Paragraph
No.21 of the aforesaid order reads as follows:-
“ 21. The contention of the State that such
restrictions on the period of certification of minority
status is necessary 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 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,
the State is not denuded by the power of withdrawing
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. In fact, the learned single Judge had only followed the
decision of the earlier Hon'ble Division Bench reported in (2013) 8
MLJ 809 (Secretary, Jeyaraj Annapackiam College V. State of
Tamil Nadu). Paragraph No.7 of the aforesaid decision reads as
follows:-
“ 7.We are in entire agreement with the Division
Bench judgment of this Court reported in Thirumuruga
Kirupananda Variyar Thavathiru Sundara Swamigal,
Medical, Educational and Charitable Trust, Sales V. State of
Tamil Nadu stated supra. Accordingly, the order of the
learned single Judge is set aside. The minority status given
to the appellant will hold good without any restriction
period. However, if the respondents are able to find any
change in the constitution of educational agency or if the
institution is run contrary to the Memorandum of
Association/Bye-laws of the Society, it is open to the
Government to issue notice and take appropriate decision in
accordance with law.”
7. When as many as three Hon'ble Division Benches have
taken the view that the minority status of the respondent college
cannot be restricted for a limited period, we are of the view that
there is no merit in the writ appeal. Merely because the respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
college filed the writ petition belatedly, questioning the position will
not be different. This writ appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.) & (R. POORNIMA, J.)
5th February 2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
PMU
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.
AND
R.POORNIMA, J.
PMU
05.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
