AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Chockalingam, J.—A challenge is made to an order of the learned Single Judge of this Court, allowing the writ petition in W.P.(MD) No. 9424 of 2006, whereby the writ of certiorarified mandamus was sought for.
After hearing the learned Counsel for the State, the court is of the considered opinion that this writ appeal does not require even admission in the hands of this Court. The Respondent in this appeal, who was the Petitioner in the main writ petition, made an application, seeking for declaration that one B.M. High School at Malamary be declared as a minority institution in terms of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. Though the application was forwarded to the Director of School Education, a direction was sought for before this Court in the writ petition in W.P. No. 7884 of 2005, whereby an order was passed by this Court on 22.08.2005, directing the Respondents to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Following the same, an order came to be passed rejecting the request of the Petitioner, dismissing the application. Hence a challenge was made in the writ petition and the Petitioner has also sought for a direction to the Respondents to declare the institution as minority institution as contemplated under the above provisions of the Constitution of India.
Both sides were heard and the materials available were also looked into. After doing so, a direction was issued to the Respondents authorities to pass appropriate orders to confer minority status to the said school within a stipulated time, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.
Advancing arguments on behalf of the Appellants, the learned Special Government Pleader would submit that in order to confer the minority status in terms of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India, the institution must be established and run by the minority. But, in the instant case, actually the institution was run by the trust, from whom the writ Petitioner has purchased the property and thus, there was a trust deed also, but it was not produced. The learned Single Judge has taken a view that there was no trust at all and hence there was no occasion to produce the trust deed. Added further the learned Counsel for the Appellants that so long as it was not shown that the institution was established and run by the minority community, no question of granting the status as minority institution in terms of Article 30(1) of the Constitution would arise and under these circumstances, the order of the learned Single Judge has got to be set aside.
The court perused all the materials available. In the instant case, for the rejection of the request made by the Respondent/Petitioner in the writ petition as found in the order of the learned Single Judge, the authority has pointed out that the copies of trust deed and bylaws were not produced; that the names of the members at the inception and the present incumbents and the details regarding their religion, language, etc. were not furnished; that the minority population statistics was also not obtained from the Population Census Officer; that the certificates of the Revenue Officer were not enclosed certifying that the members of the school committee were all minorities and the school committee has been promoting the interest of the minority community and that no school committee was constituted in the school till date.
After a perusal of the order, wherein sufficient reasons were adduced by the learned Single Judge to issue direction, and also hearing the learned Counsel for the State, it would be quite clear that the application was made by a single individual. Nowhere the law says that minority status should not be asked for by a citizen. Apart from that, it is not in controversy that the property originally belonged to the Trust was actually purchased by way of sale, by the single individual, who applied for minority status. It was not the case of the writ Petitioner that there was any Trust or it was actually constituted or maintained by the Trust in order to call for trust deed. In the instant case, the Petitioner belonged to minority community and he has applied for the same. The contention put forth by the learned Counsel for the State that in the instant case, it is not shown that it was established and run by the minority cannot be accepted. Once the institution is being run by an individual belonged to minority community, it cannot be said that it was not established by the minority community and it cannot acquire such status. So far as the contention that population certificate was not obtained as to the population of a particular community is concerned, the same is not needed for, because it is well within the knowledge of the State that Christianity is a minority community. Further, in the instant case, the Petitioner has produced a certificate from the Bishop that he is a Christian and thus, it would be indicative of the fact that he belonged to minority community. Under these circumstances, calling for proof in respect of certain facts, which do not require either, which are very well within the knowledge of the State, was nothing but the authorities concerned have made up their minds not to grant the relief. Hence the learned Single Judge has passed the well reasoned order, which, in the opinion of the court, does not require any interference.
In the result, the writ appeal must fail and accordingly, it fails. The writ appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the connected MP is also dismissed.