C.S.L. Institute of Technology vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

K.P. Sivasubramanian, J.

1 . The Petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari, to call for the records relating to the order of the second Respondent issued in Lr. No.

12606/J 1/2001 dated 31.5.2001 and quash the same as the Petitioner Management has already been given the declaration of Minority Status by

G.O. Ms. No. 418 dated 5.7.1996 by the first Respondent.

Heard both sides.

The dispute which arises for consideration in this writ petition is as regards the necessity for the Minority Schools to obtain orders of renewal of

declaration of their Minority Status for each and every academic year. In the impugned order dated 31.5.2001, the Petitioner school has been

directed to obtain orders from the Government regarding the Minority Status for the academic year 2001-2002. Objecting to the same, the

Petitioner has come forward with the above writ petition.

The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Petitioner institution has been declared as a Minority Institution and also confirmed by

the Government itself in G.O. Ms. No. 418 dated 5.7.1996. That being so, there was no necessity to direct the renewal for each and every

academic year. Reliance placed on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Thirumuruga Kirupananda Variyar Thavathiru Sundaran

Swamigal Medical, Educational and Charitable Trust Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Another, ) in which the same issue was considered by the

Division Bench. The Division Bench held that periodical renewal is not required when once declaration has been granted in favour of the institution.

The contention of the Petitioner is however, very vehemently opposed by the learned Special Government Pleader. It is contended that the

Petitioner has been sub-sequently. issued with an order and the Government had confirmed their Minority Status for the year 2001-2002 and

therefore, there is no necessity to issue any direction as prayed for by the Petitioner.

It is true that by order dated 20.11.2003, the Government had renewed the minority status of the Petitioner institution for | the academic year

2001-2002. But the question which arises for consideration in this writ petition is with regard to the justification of the Government to seek for

periodical renewal for every academic year. That issue was particularly considered by the Division Bench of this Court as stated above. I am in

respectful agreement with the views expressed by the Division Bench in this context. There is no provocation for the Government | to insist on such

renewal for every year when | once the institution has been granted the Minority Status. Unless or otherwise, there is any change in the Constitution

of the agency or any adverse information is received by the Government, which might lead to the conclusion that the declaration of the Institution is

fraudulent and erroneous or the Management had undergone any change in its constitution, there is absolutely no need or necessity for the

Government to expect such periodical renewal. Such requirement will unnecessarily lead to delay and redtapism which is totally uncalled for. In the

present case itself for the academic year 2001-2002 renewal is granted only on 20.11.2003, that too only because the Petitioner has moved this

Court. The administration of the school and the plight of the students cannot be kept under such unreasonable suspense and doubt which is totally

unwarranted. Assuming that periodical check is necessary, the Government should evolve a methodology whereby renewal could be sought for

once in five years or more and in such a manner that renewal should be applied for and granted at least three or four months prior to the lapse of

the said period. The present requirement of annual renewal is neither reasonable nor warranted. As stated earlier, it is always open to the

authorities to call upon the management to explain the position if any adverse information is received by the Government. It is totally unreasonable

to expect all the minority schools in the State to be knocking at the doors of the authorities every year and the authorities would pass orders only

after two years as in this case in spite of filing a writ petition.

With the result, the Petitioner is entitled to succeed. This writ petition is allowed as prayed for. No costs.