Page 1

REPORTABLE IN  THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2678 OF 2013 (Arising out of SLP (C ) No.22430 of 2010)

Dayanand Anglo Vedic (DAV) College Trust  and Management Society                …..Appellant(s)

Versus

State of Maharashtra & Anr.             ….Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

M.Y. EQBAL, J.

Leave granted.

2. The appellant – Dayanand Anglo Vedic (DAV) College Trust  

and Management Society has challenged the order dated 24.2.2010  

passed by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition  

No.1053 of 2010. By the said order,  the Division Bench dismissed the  

writ petition and refused to interfere with the order dated 26.10.2009  

passed by respondent  No.2 (The Principal Secretary and Competent  

Authority,  Minority  Development  Department,  Government  of  

Maharashtra)  withdrawing  the  linguistic  minority  status  of  the  

appellant  institution  which  was  earlier  granted  by  order  dated  

11.7.2008.

Page 2

3. The withdrawal of the recommendation for the appellant-

Society as linguistic minority institution was on the ground that the  

earlier  order  granting  recommendation  was under  the  mistake that  

the  trustees  of  the  appellant  were  residing  in  the  State  of  

Maharashtra.

4. The  brief  facts  leading  to  this  appeal  are  thus:   The  

appellant-Society was formed in the year 1885; and it was originally  

got registered  under the Societies’ Registration Act, 1860 at Lahore &  

subsequently in the year 1948 in the State of Punjab. Since then, the  

appellant is said to have established a large number of schools and  

colleges  all  over  India  and  is  running  such institutions  all  over  the  

country.  The aims and objects of the appellant-Society as stated are  

to establish educational institutions to encourage the study of Hindi,  

classical Sanskrit and Vedas and also to provide instructions in English  

and  other  languages,  Arts,  science  including  Medicine,  Engineering  

etc.   The  appellant’s  further  case  is  that  the  Society  started  

educational institutions at Solapur in the State of Maharashtra in 1940  

and is  having  other  schools  and colleges  at  different  places in  the  

State of Maharashtra.  The persons speaking Hindi language and the  

followers of  Arya Samaj in the State of Maharashtra constituted less  

than  50% of  its  total  population.   Therefore,  being  formed  by  the  

persons belonging to Arya Samaj  and speaking Hindi  language, the  

appellant-Society  claimed  to  be  a  linguistic  minority  within  the  

2

Page 3

meaning and purview of Article 30 of the Constitution of India.  On  

these facts,  the appellant-Society  stated that  it  was earlier  granted  

linguistic  minority  status in the State of  Maharashtra  by the Higher  

and  Technical  Educational  Department  of  the  respondents  for  the  

academic  years  2004-05  and  2005-06.   The  said  recognition  was  

granted after full appreciation of the documents and  hearing of the  

appellant.  For  the  year  2006-07  also,  the  appellant-Society  was  

declared  a  linguistic  minority  after  appreciation  of  documents.  

However, in the year 2008, the Government of Maharashtra issued a  

new  Resolution  dated  04.07.2008  laying  down  the  procedure  for  

granting  status  of   religious/linguistic  minority  to  educational  

institutions run by the minorities in the State of Maharashtra. On the  

basis  of  said  Resolution,  the  respondents  issued  a  Certificate  on  

11.7.2008 recognizing the appellant-Society at Solapur as a linguistic  

minority institution for the academic year 2008-09 also.

5. The problem started after the appellant-Society made an  

application  on  15.7.2008  requesting  respondent  No.  1  to  issue  

certificate of recognition in the name of appellant New Delhi instead of  

Solapur.  Instead of correcting the alleged mistake in the Certificate,  

respondent  No.2  passed  an  order  dated  2.8.2008  cancelling  the  

Certificate dated 11.7.2008 issued to the appellant.  The respondents  

by the aforesaid order cancelled the recognition of the appellant as a  

minority  linguistic  educational  institution  for  the years  2004-05 and  

3

Page 4

2006-07 also.  The main ground for cancellation of recognition of the  

linguistic  minority  status  of  the  appellant  was  that  though  the  

appellant-Trust was registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act  by  

the  Charity Commissioner, Mumbai, a majority of the trustees were  

not residents of the State of Maharashtra and, therefore they cannot  

be called a linguistic minority.

6. Challenging  the  aforesaid  order  of  the  respondents  

cancelling the recognition,  the appellant-Society moved the Bombay  

High Court  by filing Writ  Petition No.284 of 2009,  which was finally  

disposed of with a direction to the respondents to pass a fresh order  

after giving opportunity of hearing and considering all the documents  

of  the  appellant.  In  compliance of  that  order,  the  appellant  filed  a  

fresh  application  on  20.08.2009  together  with  all  the  necessary  

documents  requesting  respondent  No.  2  to  restore  the  linguistic  

minority status of the appellant.  The said respondent, after hearing  

the appellant-Society, finally rejected the application in terms of order  

dated  26.10.2009  refusing  to  restore  the  earlier  recognition  of  

linguistic  minority  status  granted  to  the  appellant.   The  appellant-

Society then challenged  the order dated 26.10.2009 by filing a writ  

petition being Writ Petition No.1053 of 2010 before the Bombay High  

Court.  The said writ petition was finally heard and dismissed by the  

Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by impugned order dated  

4

Page 5

24.2.2010.   For  better  appreciation,  the  aforesaid  order  dated  

24.2.2010 is reproduced hereinbelow:-

“The  Petitioner-institution  was  given  initially  recommendation  as  minority  institution.   But  because  that  recommendation  was  given  under  a  mistake that the trustees of  the Petitioner  reside  in  the  State  of  Maharashtra.   The  trustees of the Petitioner are claiming to be  belonging  to  linguistic  minority  because  they are Hindi speaking people.  But all the  trustees of the Petitioner are residing in the  area where majority language is Hindi.  The  authorities,  therefore,  have  said  that  the  Petitioner-trust  cannot  claim  to  be  an  institution belonging to linguistic minority in  the  State  of  Maharashtra.   The  learned  counsel   appearing  for  the  Petitioner  submitted that as a certificate was granted  on  11.6.2008  (sic. 11.7.2008)  it  could  not  have  been  withdrawn  by  the  impugned  order.

The  submission  is  not  well  founded.  Because it  is  the case of  the Government  that certificate was issued under a mistake.  In  our  opinion,  therefore,  the  State  Government  had  a  right  to  correct  that  mistake.  What is further pertinent to note  is  that  the  Petitioner  itself  returned  the  certificate  which  had been  granted  to  the  Petitioner.

Taking  overall  view  of  the  matter,  therefore, as admittedly the trustees of the  petitioner  do  not  reside  in  the  State  of  Maharashtra,  where Hindi  speaking people  are a linguistic minority, the petitioner trust  cannot  claim  to  be  a  minority  institution.  Petition is, therefore, rejected.”

5

Page 6

7. By filing the instant appeal by special leave, the appellant-

Society  has  challenged  the  aforesaid  order  passed  by  the  Division  

Bench refusing to interfere with the order dated 26.10.2009 passed by  

the respondents, thereby withdrawing the linguistic minority status of  

the appellant,  which was earlier  recognized by respondent  No.2  by  

order dated 11.7.2008.

8. Assailing the impugned orders, Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned  

senior  counsel  appearing  for  the  appellant-Society  firstly  submitted  

that   the  High  Court  failed  to  appreciate  that  the  order  impugned  

dated 26.10.2009 passed by the respondents adopted a mechanical  

procedure  and  in  an  arbitrary  manner  withdrew  the  recognition.  

According to the learned senior  counsel,  the order  of  withdrawal  of  

recognition passed by the respondents is absolutely unconstitutional  

and illegal, inasmuch as the appellant is an institution established  in  

the State of Maharashtra by the citizens speaking Hindi language and  

as  such  it  is  a  linguistic  minority  institution  in  the  State  of  

Maharashtra.  He submitted that the appellant is a linguistic minority  

in the State of  Maharashtra  as Marathi  is  the  language spoken by  

majority of the people; and the place of residence of the trustees of  

appellant-Society is irrelevant and immaterial  qua the establishment  

and  administration  of  the  educational  institution  by  the  appellant-

Society in the State of Maharashtra.  Learned counsel submitted that  

6

Page 7

the order of withdrawal is erroneous and contrary to the provisions of  

Government  Resolution  dated  4.7.2008  which  prescribes  the  

procedure for granting  a minority status and recognition certificate.  

He  submitted  that  the  Resolution  nowhere  prescribes  that  any  

institution or trust claiming the linguistic minority status should have  

such trustees  who are  residents  of  the  said  State.   Learned  senior  

counsel,  however,  submitted  that  the  pre-condition  for  grant  of  

minority status to an educational institution should be only that the  

institution  is  of  the  persons  whose  mother-tongue  is  any  Indian  

language other than Marathi; and further, minimum 2/3rd trustees of  

the Managing Committee of the Society/institution should be from the  

concerned minority community.  According to the learned counsel, the  

appellant-Society  fulfilled  all  the  conditions  specified  in  the  

Government Resolution dated 4.7.2008 and as such the appellant is  

eligible  and qualified  for  grant  of  recognition  as  linguistic  minority.  

Learned  senior  counsel  put  heavy  reliance on  the  decisions  of  this  

Court  in  D.A.V.  College  Etc.  Etc. vs.  State  of  Punjab   &  Ors.  

(1971) 2 SCC 269,  T.M.A. Pai Foundation & Ors. vs.  State of  

Karnataka  &  Ors. (2002)  8  SCC  481  and Kanya  Junior  High  

School,  Bal  Vidya  Mandir,  Etah,  U.P. vs.  U.P.  Basic  Shiksha  

Parishad, Allahabad, U.P. & Ors.  (2006) 11 SCC 92.

9. Finally,  learned  counsel  submitted  that  the  object  of  

running the institution is important and not the persons running the  

7

Page 8

institution.   Article  30  of  the  Constitution  protects  the  right  of  the  

minority to establish and administer the minority/linguistic institution  

in order to preserve the culture and language of the minorities.  

10. The  stand  of  the  respondents  as  stated  in  the  counter  

affidavit is that the appellant-Trust does not fulfill the required criteria  

for  granting  linguistic  minority  status  in  the  State  of  Maharashtra.  

The  respondents’  case  is  that  the  appellant’s  institution  was  

established in the State of  Maharashtra  by citizens residing outside  

the State of  Maharashtra and speaking Hindi  language and as such  

they are not  a linguistic minority  in the State of  Maharashtra.   The  

respondents’ case is that in order to claim the protection by virtue of  

being a minority  community as guaranteed by the Constitution,  the  

obvious requirement should be that one must be a minority.    It  is  

stated  that   there  is  no  bar  or  restriction  for  running  educational  

institution in the State by the trusts which are registered outside   the  

State  of  Maharashtra,  but  these  institutions  are  not  treated  as  

minorities  and  they  will  definitely  be  subject  to  the  Rules  and  

Regulations  of  the  State  which  are  applicable  to  non-minority  

institutions.    

11. Lastly,  it  is  stated  by  the  respondents  that  the  

constitutional protection under Article 30 of the Constitution of India is  

available only to those who are actually and physically in  minority in  

the State.  The appellant is an institution established in the State of  

8

Page 9

Maharashtra by citizens residing outside the State of Maharashtra and  

speaking Hindi language and as such they are not linguistic minority in  

the State of Maharashtra.  Hence, the status earlier granted by the  

respondents  to  the  appellant-Society  has  been  rightly  withdrawn,  

especially when the appellant wanted such recognition in the name of  

the Trust registered in New Delhi consisting of the trustees residing in  

Delhi.

12. As noticed above, Mr. Ranjit Kumar has put heavy reliance  

on T.M.A. Pai Foundation case (supra) in support of his contentions.  

In that case, the 11-Judge Bench of this Court has settled many issues  

related  to  Articles  29  and  30  of  the  Constitution  of  India.   Their  

Lordships  held  that  Article  30(1)  makes  it  clear  that  religious  and  

linguistic  minorities have been put  on par,  insofar  as that Article is  

concerned.  Therefore, whatever be the unit – whether a State or the  

whole of India – for determining a linguistic minority, it would be the  

same in relation to a religious minority.  India is divided into different  

linguistic States.  The States have been carved out on the basis of the  

language  of  the  majority  of  persons  of  that  region.   For  example,  

Andhra Pradesh was established on the basis of the language of that  

region viz. Telugu.  “Linguistic minority” can, therefore, logically only  

be in relation to a particular State.  If the determination of “linguistic  

minority” for the purpose of Article 30 is to be in relation to the whole  

of  India,  then within  the  State  of  Andhra  Pradesh,  Telugu speaking  

9

Page 10

people  will  have to be regarded as a “linguistic  minority”.  This  will  

clearly be contrary to the concept of linguistic States. Their Lordships  

further held that Article 30 gives the right to a linguistic or religious  

minority of a State to establish and administer educational institutions  

of their choice.  It was observed that as a result of the insertion of  

Entry  25  in  List  III,  Parliament  can  now  legislate  in  relation  to  

education, which was  only a State subject previously. The jurisdiction  

of Parliament is to make laws for the whole or a part of India. It is well   

recognized that  geographical  classification  is  not  violative  of  Article  

14.  It would, therefore, be possible that, with respect to a particular  

State  or  group  of  States,  Parliament  may  legislate  in  relation  to  

education.  However,  Article  30  gives  the  right  to  a  linguistic  or  

religious minority of a State to establish and administer educational  

institutions of their choice. The minority for the purpose of Article 30  

cannot  have  different  meanings  depending  upon  as  to  who  is  

legislating.   Language  being  the  basis  for  the  establishment  of  

different  States, for  the purpose of  Article 30 a “linguistic minority”  

will  have  to  be  determined  in  relation  to  the  State  in  which  the  

educational institution is sought to be established.  The position  with  

regard to the  religious minority  is similar,  since both religious and  

linguistic minorities have been put on  par in Article 30.

13. In  the  instant  appeal,  the  sole  question  that  arises  for  

consideration is as to whether a member of a linguistic non-minority in  

1

Page 11

one State can establish a Trust or Society in another State and claim  

minority  status  in  that  State.   In  T.M.A. Pai Foundation case,  11  

questions were framed for being answered.  One of those questions  

being Question No.7 was the same as that in the instant case, namely,  

whether  the  member  of  a  linguistic  non-minority  in  one  State  can  

establish a trust or society in another State and claim minority status  

in  that  State.   Their  Lordships  held  that  this  question  need not  be  

answered by that Bench and it would be dealt with by a regular Bench.

14. In the case of   P.A. Inamdar and Ors.  vs.  State of  

Maharashtra & Ors. (2005) 6 SCC 537, a 7-Judge Bench of this Court  

has  elaborately  discussed  T.M.A.  Pai  Foundation case  and  has  

clarified  the  issues  further.   For  better  appreciation,  some  of  the  

relevant paragraphs are quoted hereinunder:

“91. The  right  to  establish  an  educational  institution,  for  charity  or  for  profit,  being  an  occupation,  is  protected  by  Article  19(1)(g).  Notwithstanding  the  fact  that  the  right  of  a  minority  to  establish  and  administer  an  educational  institution  would  be  protected  by  Article  19(1)(g)  yet  the  founding  fathers  of  the  Constitution felt the need of enacting Article 30.  The  reasons  are  too  obvious  to  require  elaboration.  Article  30(1)  is  intended  to  instil  confidence in minorities against any executive or  legislative  encroachment  on  their  right  to  establish and administer educational institution of  their  choice.  Article  30(1)  though  styled  as  a  right,  is  more  in  the  nature  of  protection  for  minorities.  But  for  Article  30,  an  educational  institution,  even  though  based  on  religion  or  language,  could  have  been  controlled  or  regulated  by  law  enacted  under  clause  (6)  of  Article  19,  and so,  Article  30 was enacted as a  

1

Page 12

guarantee  to  the  minorities  that  so  far  as  the  religious  or  linguistic  minorities  are  concerned,  educational  institutions of their choice will  enjoy  protection from such legislation.  However, such  institutions  cannot  be  discriminated  against  by  the State solely on account of their being minority  institutions. The minorities being numerically less  qua  non-minorities,  may not  be  able  to  protect  their religion or language and such cultural values  and  their  educational  institutions  will  be  protected under Article 30,  at  the stage of  law- making.  However,  merely  because  Article  30(1)  has  been  enacted,  minority  educational  institutions  do  not  become  immune  from  the  operation  of  regulatory  measures  because  the  right to administer does not include the right to  maladminister.  To  what  extent  the  State  regulation can go, is the issue. The real purpose  sought  to  be  achieved  by  Article  30  is  to  give  minorities  some  additional  protection.  Once  aided, the autonomy conferred by the protection  of  Article  30(1)  on  the  minority  educational  institution is diluted as provisions of Article 29(2)  will be attracted. Certain conditions in the nature  of  regulations  can  legitimately  accompany  the  State aid.”    “95. The  term “minority”  is  not  defined  in  the  Constitution. Chief Justice Kirpal, speaking for the  majority  in  Pai Foundation took a clue from the  provisions  of  the  States  Reorganisation  Act and  held that in view of India having been divided into  different linguistic  States, carved out on the  basis of the language of the majority of persons  of that region, it is the State, and not the whole of  India, that shall have to be taken as the unit for  determining a linguistic minority  vis-à-vis Article  30.  Inasmuch  as  Article  30(1)  places  on  par  religions and languages, he held that the minority  status,  whether  by reference to language or  by  reference to religion, shall have to be determined  by  treating  the  State  as  a  unit.  The  principle  would  remain  the  same whether  it  is  a  Central  legislation  or  a  State  legislation  dealing  with  a  linguistic  or  religious  minority.  Khare,J.  (  as  His  Lordship  then  was),  Quadri,  J.  and  Variava  and  

1

Page 13

Bhan,  JJ.  in  their  separate  concurring  opinions  agreed  with  Kirpal,  C.J.   According  to  Khare,  J.,  take the population  of  any State as a unit,  find  out its demography and calculate if the persons  speaking  a  particular  language  or  following  a  particular  religion  are  less  than  50%  of  the  population,  then  give   them  the  status  of  linguistic or religious minority.  The population of  the entire country is irrelevant for the purpose of  determining  such  status.  Quadri,  J.  opined  that  the  word  “minority”  literally  means  “a  non- dominant” group. Ruma Pal, J.  defined the word  “minority” to mean “numerically less”.  However,  she refused to take the  State  as a  unit  for  the  purpose of determining minority status as, in her  opinion, the question of minority status must be  determined  with  reference  to  the  country  as  a  whole.  She  assigned  reasons  for  the  purpose.  Needless to say, her opinion is a lone voice. Thus,  with  the  dictum of  Pai  Foundation it  cannot  be  doubted  that  a   minority,  whether  linguistic  or  religious, is determinable only by reference to the  demography  of  a  State  and  not  by  taking  into  consideration the population of the country as a  whole.

96. Such  definition  of  minority  resolves  one  issue but gives rise to many a questions when it  comes  to  defining  “minority  educational  institution”.  Whether  a  minority  educational  institution, though established by a minority, can  cater  to  the  needs  of  that  minority  only?  Can  there  be  an  enquiry  to  identify  the  person  or  persons  who  have  really  established  the  institution?  Can  a  minority  institution  provide  cross-border  or  inter-State  educational  facilities  and  yet  retain  the  character  of  minority  educational institution?”

15. Their Lordships further observed referring the decision of  

this Court in Kerala Educational Bill, 1957, In re., 1959 SCR 995,  

as under:

1

Page 14

“97. In Kerala Education Bill the scope and ambit  of the right conferred by Article 30(1) came up for  consideration. Article 30(1) does not require that  minorities  based  on  religion  should  establish  educational institutions for teaching religion only  or  that  a  linguistic  minority  should  establish  educational  institution  for  teaching  its  language  only. The object underlying Article 30(1) is to see  the desire  of  minorities being fulfilled that their  children  should  be  brought  up  properly  and  efficiently  and  acquire  eligibility  for  higher  university education and go out in the world fully  equipped  with  such  intellectual  attainments  as  will  make  them fit  for  entering  public  services,  educational  institutions  imparting  higher  instructions  including general  secular  education.  Thus, the twin objects sought to be achieved by  Article 30(1) in the interest of minorities are: (i) to  enable such minority to conserve its religion and  language,  and  (ii)  to  give  a  thorough,  good,  general  education to children belonging to such  minority.  So  long  as  the  institution  retains  its  minority character by achieving and continuing to  achieve  the  above-said  two  objectives,  the  institution would remain a minority institution.

98. The learned Judges in  Kerala Education Bill  were  posed  with  the  issue  projected  by  Article  29(2).  What  will  happen  if  the  institution  was  receiving  aid  out  of  State  funds?  The  apparent  conflict was resolved by the Judges employing a  beautiful expression. They said, Articles 29(2) and  30(1),  read  together,  clearly  contemplate  a  minority  institution  with  a  “sprinkling  of  outsiders” admitted in it.  By admitting a member  of  non-minority  into  the  minority  institution,  it  does not shed its  character  and cease  to be a  minority institution.  The learned Judges went on  to  observe  that  such  “sprinkling”  would  enable  the  distinct  language,  script  and  culture  of  a  minority  being  propagated  amongst  non- members of a particular minority community and  that  would  indeed  better  serve  the  object  of  conserving the language, religion and culture of  that minority.”   

1

Page 15

Paras 101 and 102 are also worth  to be quoted here which are as  

under:

          “In  this  background  arises  the  complex  question  of  trans-border  operation  of  Article  30(1).  Pai Foundation has clearly ruled in favour  of the  State (or a province) being the unit for the  purpose of deciding minority.  By this declaration  of  law, certain consequences follow.  First,  every  community in India becomes a minority because  in one or the other State of the country it will be  in minority  - linguistic or  religious.   What would  happen  if  a  minority  belonging  to  a  particular  State establishes an educational institution in that  State  and  administers  it  but  for  the  benefit  of  members belonging to that minority domiciled in  the neighbouring State where the community is in  majority?   Would  it  not  be  a  fraud  on  the  Constitution? In St. Stephen’s, (1992) 1 SCC 558,  Their  Lordships had ruled that Article 30(1)  is a  protective  measure  only  for  the  benefit  of  religious and linguistic minorities and “no ill-fit or  camouflaged institution should get away with the  constitutional  protection”  (SCC  p.587  para  28).  The  question  need  not  detain  us  for  long  as  it  stands  answered  in  no  uncertain  terms  in  Pai  Foundation.  Emphasising the need for preserving  its minority character so as to enjoy the privilege  of protection under Article 30(1),  it is necessary  that  the  objective  of  establishing the  institution  was not defeated.

                  “  If so, such an institution is under an  obligation to admit the bulk of the students  fitting  into  the  description  of  the  minority  community.  Therefore, the students of that  group  residing  in  the  State  in  which  the  institution is located have to be necessarily  admitted in a large measure because they  constitute  the  linguistic  minority  group  as  far  as  that  State  is  concerned.   In  other  words,  the  predominance  of  linguistic  minority students hailing from the State in  which the minority educational institution is  established  should  be  present.   The  

1

Page 16

management  bodies  of  such  institution  cannot resort to the device of admitting the  linguistic students of the adjoining State in  which  they  are  in  a  majority,  under  the  façade of the protection given under Article  30(1)”. (SCC p.585, para 153.)

                 The same principle applies to religious minority.  If  any  other  view  was  to  be  taken,  the  very  objective  of  conferring  the  preferential  right  of  admission by harmoniously constructing  Articles  30(1) and 29(2), may be distorted.

        It  necessarily  follows  from  the  law  laid  down  in  Pai  Foundation that  to  establish  a  minority institution the institution must primarily  cater to the requirements of that minority of that  State else its character of  minority  institution is  lost.   However,  to  borrow  the  words  of  Chief  Justice  S.R.  Das  in  Kerala  Education  Bill a  “sprinkling” of that minority from the other State  on  the  same  footing  as  a  sprinkling  of  non- minority  students,  would  be  permissible  and  would not deprive the institution of its essential  character  of  being  a  minority  institution  determined by reference to that State as a unit.”  

16. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned counsel submitted that in  P.A.  

Inamdar case  (supra),  the  question  that  arose  for  consideration  

before the 7-Judge Bench has been left untouched observing that the  

said questions have been dealt with by the  regular Bench.  

17. The  main  grievance  of  the  appellant-Society  is  that  the  

impugned  order  of  withdrawal  of  recognition  made  by  the  State  

authorities is erroneous and contrary to the provisions of Government  

Resolution dated 4.7.2008 which prescribes the procedure for granting  

minority status.  The appellant-Society alleged to have fulfilled all the  

1

Page 17

conditions specified in the said Resolution dated 4.7.2008 and thereby  

made itself eligible and qualified for grant of recognition as linguistic  

minority.  As noticed above, the resolution dated 4.7.2008 issued by  

the  Minority  Development  Department  of  the  State  of  Maharashtra  

lays down the conditions and procedure for the grant of certificate of  

minority linguistic  character of the institution.  The relevant portion of  

the Resolution reads as under:

“RESOLUTION:  The  issue  of  making  existing  procedure  easy  for  granting  the  recognition  as  cadre  as  religious/linguistic  minority  societies  which are being conducted by the minorities was  under the consideration  of the State Government  for some time.  Accordingly, after consulting with  the  experts  in  this  field  interested  persons  and  taking into consideration directions given by the  Hon’ble  Supreme  Court  in  this  connection  from  time  to  time  after  superseding   the  Central  Administration  Department,  Resolution  No.MS- 2006/634/CR-63/2006/35,  dt.  11.6.2007,  the  Government of Maharashtra is prescribing terms  and  conditions  and  procedure  for  providing  recognition   of  religious/societies  conducted/managed  by  the  State  as  detailed  hereunder:-

(1) The  Competent  Authority  for  providing  recognition of minority cadre:

For  providing  recognition  of  religious  linguistic  minority  cadre  to  the  educational  societies managed by minorities of the State,  State  Government  has  declared  by  the  Principal  Secretary/Secretary  Minority  Development   Department,  Government  of  Maharashtra as Competent Authority as per  Government  Notification  No.  MES-2008/CR- 149/08/E-1: dt. 4.7.2008.

1

Page 18

(2) Touchstones  for  the  eligibility  of  the  recognition for religious linguistic minority:

(1) Those  educational  societies  to  whom  recognition has been  granted prior to  11.6.2007  as  per  specific  order  or  letter  or  in  accordance  with  General  Administration  Department,  Government  Resolution  No.MES- 2006/634/CR-63/2006/35  dated  11.6.2007  as  minority  educational  institutions/societies;  such educational  societies/institutions are  not required  to  submit  application  again  for  the  recognition  of  the  minority  cadre.  However,  conditions  prescribed  at  para-5 hereunder will be applicable to  all such societies.

(2) It is necessary that applicant minority  institution/society  should  have  been  registered under Societies Registration  Act, 1860 or Bombay Public Trusts Act,  1950 or other concerned statute.  The  concerned  minority  society  of  the  institution  should  have  mentioned  in  its  bye-laws  of  rules  of  which  the  religious/linguistic  minority  communities that society belong, it has  been  established  to  protect  that  the  interest that minority community.

(3) Institution/society of all religions which  have  been  notified  by  the  Central  Government/Maharashtra  Government  will  be  eligible  to  submit  the  application  for  obtaining  the  recognition  for  their  educational  institutions  as  religious   minority  educational institution.

(4) Educational institution of such persons    whose  mother  tongue  is  other  Indian  language than Marathi  will  be eligible  to  submit  the  application  for  the  

1

Page 19

recognition  of  minority  educational  society of education.

(5) It  is  necessary  that  minimum  2/3  rd    trustees  of  the  Management  Committee  of  the  Applicant  Society/institution  should  be   from  concerned minority community.”

      (emphasis  given)

18. From a perusal of the relevant provisions of the Resolution  

quoted  hereinabove,  it is manifest that one of the conditions,  inter  

alia, is that the educational institutions of such persons whose mother  

tongue is other Indian language than Marathi will be eligible  to submit  

their application for recognition and that minimum 2/3rd trustees of the  

Management Committee of the Society or institution should be from  

concerned minority community.  In other words, as per the Resolution,   

2/3rd of  the  trustees  of  the  Management  Committee  of  the  Society  

should be from minority community.

19. On  a  perusal  of  the  documents  contained  in  the  

paperbook, the following facts emerged:

(i)   By communication  dated  28.06.2006  issued  

by  the  Urban  Secretary,  Higher  and  Technical  

Education  Department,  Government  of  

Maharashtra,  the  Director,  Higher  Education,  

Maharashtra  State,  Pune,  was informed  that  on  

1

Page 20

the  basis  of  the  representation  submitted  by  

Dayanand  Institutions  at  Solapur  for  providing  

minority cadre (Hindi linguistic), the Government  

has  granted  minority  cadre  (Hindi  linguistic)  to  

the higher colleges (degree colleges) managed by  

the  Dayanand  Institutions,  Solapur   for  two  

educational years i.e. 2006-07 and 2007-2008.  

(ii). In the application dated 6.7.2007 submitted  

by  the  appellant  for  obtaining  sanction  of  

religious/  linguistic  minority,  although in  column  

No.1  of  the  form  of  application,  name  of  the  

Society has been shown as Dayanand Anglo Vedic  

(DAV)  College  Trust  and  Management  Society,  

New  Delhi,  but  other  required  information  has  

been given in the manner hereinunder:-

Whether minimum 2/3rd  persons  or  trustees/members  of  Board  of  Directors  who  are  looking  after  the  business  of  the  society  are  from  minority/linguistic  group,  if  yes,  their  numbers.

All  Trustees/Members  of  the Board of Directors of  the  Society  who  are  looking  after  the  business  of  the  society  are  from  Arya  Community  and  their  mother tongue is Hindi

2

Page 21

20. It is, therefore, clear that the appellant has not correctly  

furnished the required information, inasmuch as it was not said that  

the Trustees/Members of the Board of Directors, who are looking after  

the business of the Society, are non-minority. Obviously, the reason is  

that the persons or trustees, who are managing the business of the  

Society are non-minority i.e. residing in New Delhi and not in the State  

of Maharashtra.

21. The  Certificate  of  Recognition  was  granted  for  the  year  

from 2004-2008 in the name of appellant’s institution i.e. Educational  

Trust and Management Society, Solapur.  For better appreciation, the  

last Certificate granted on 11.7.2008 for the academic year 2008-09 is  

reproduced hereinbelow:-

  “GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA  Competent  Authority  and  Principal  Secretary  Minority   Development  Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-400032.

No.MES-2007/264/CR-145/2007/35/D-1  Date:11.7.2008 CERTIFICATE  FOR  THE  RECOGNITION  OF  MINORITY  CADRE

    Educational Trust and Management Society,  Solapur  had submitted   the  Application  on  9.7.2007  for  obtaining  certificate  for  the  reorganization  of  their  society  in  the  cadre  as  Linguistic  Minority  Educational  Institute.   During  the  hearing  which  was  conducted  of  the  said  Institute before me on 11.7.2008, on the basis  of  

2

Page 22

submissions made by the Officials of the Institute,  I  have satisfied  that,  the  said  Institute  is  being  established and conducted through persons from  Linguistic  (Hindi)  Minority  or  Group  of  persons,  declared by State Government as per touchstone  prescribed  under  Minority  Development  Department,  Government  Resolution  No.MES- 2008/CR133/2008/D-1  dated  4.7.2008.   as  a  result  it is being declared that the said Institute  is Linguistic (Hindi) Minority Educational Institute.

    This certificate will be valid only for the State  of  Maharashtra.   The  Linguistic  Minority  Cadre  which has been granted to the said society will be  applicable  to all  educational  benches conducted  by the Institution.           The Linguistic  Minority Cadre which has been  granted  to  the  above  mentioned  Educational  Institution will be legally valid from the academic  year 2008-2009.  it will be binding to comply with  the  touchstones  and  conditions  constantly  and  specifically  which  have  been  prescribed  as  per  Government  Resolution  No.  MES-2008/CR- 133/2008/D-1 dated 4.7.2008.

   Sd/- (TF.Thekkekara)

Competent Authority Principal Secretary Minority  Development  Department  Mantralaya,, Mumbai-400032.”

22. It  was  for  the  first  time  that  the  appellant  by  

letter/representation  dated  15.7.2008  addressed  to  the  Competent  

Authority, Minority Development Department, Mumbai, stated that the  

recognition certificate  for linguistic minority has been issued in the  

name of “Dayanand Anglo Vedic (DAV) College Trust and Management  

Society,  Solapur”.   Therefore,  a  request  was  made  in  the  said  

2

Page 23

representation that since the appellant-Society is based at New Delhi,  

Certificate of Recognition may be issued in the name of “Dayanand  

Anglo Vedic (DAV) College Trust and Management Society, New Delhi”  

instead  of  Solapur.   The  said  representation  was  rejected  by  the  

respondents  mainly  on  the  ground  that  only  those  Hindi  speaking  

persons who are residing in Maharashtra, will be treated  as minority  

in  Maharashtra.   Admittedly,  in  the  instant  case,  the  appellant-

Trust/Society is registered at New Delhi and majority of the trustees  

reside at New Delhi  and, therefore, these persons cannot be treated  

as minority  in  the State  of  Maharashtra  and they cannot  claim the  

protection  of  linguistic  minority   in  the  State  of  Maharashtra.   The  

aforesaid  order  was  impugned  in  the  writ  petition  which  ultimately  

resulted in a direction to  the respondents to pass a fresh order after  

giving opportunity of hearing to the appellant.   

23.  In  compliance  of  the  said  direction,  the  respondents  

passed the impugned order dated 26.10.2009.  The Authority, while  

rejecting the application for the grant of minority status, recorded the  

following reasons:

A) On  scrutiny  of  papers,  it  was  seen  that  although the  covering application cited the name  of  the  institution  as  “Dayanand  Institutions  Solapur”,  the  trust  deed  was  registered  in  the  name of   “Dayanand  Anglo  Vedic  College  Trust  and Management Society” and the majority of the  trustees resided at New Delhi.

2

Page 24

B) The certificate of registration submitted by  the Dayanand Institutions Solapur in the name of  `Dayanand  Anglo  Vedic  College  Trust  and  Management  Society’  issued  by  the  Charity  Commissioner  Mumbai  and  their  application  dated 6.7.07 on the letterhead styled  ‘Dayanand  Institutions Solapur’ led the Competent Authority  to  believe  that  the  trustees  were   located  in  Maharashtra,  when  in  fact  they  were  not  residents of Maharashtra.  It was on the basis of  these  documents  that  the  certificate   of  recognition  as  a  minority  institution  had  been  issued on the 11th July, 2008.  the application of  the so-called `Dayanand Institutions  Solapur’  by  its  letter  dated  15.07.08  for  a  certificate  of  recognition  of  linguistic  minority  status  to  the  ‘Dayanand  Anglo  Vedic  College  Trust  and  Management Society, New Delhi’ was rejected  in  the light of the above facts.

C)  It  was  noticed  from  the  documents  submitted by the organization, that although the  trust had produced a deed of registration in the  name and style  `Dayanand Anglo  Vedic College  Trust  and  Management  Society’,  registered  at  Mumbai  by  the  Charity  Commissioner,  Greater  Mumbai,  the  organization  was  also  registered  under  the  name  and   style  `Dayanand  Anglo  Vedic  College  Trust  and  Management  Society’  under  the  Societies  Registration  Act,  1860  at  Lahore on 30.6.1948.  it is seen from the copy of  the Schedule 1 of the list of trustees, issued by  the Charity Commissioner Mumbai on 7.3.08, that  of the 34 trustees of the `Dayanand Anglo Vedic  College Trust and Management Society’ recorded  with the Charity  Commissioner  Greater  Mumbai,  25  of  the  trustees  reside  in  New  Delhi,  4  in  Haryana, 4 in Punjab and one at Ranchi.  It is not  denied by the applicant trust that in the case of  both  trusts  viz.  registered   in  2003  under  the  Mumbai  Public  Trust  Act,  1950  and  uner  the  Societies  Registration  Act  1860  at  Lahore  in  30.6.1948, the majority of the trustees reside in  New Delhi  and that the majority  of  them reside  outside Maharashtra.

2

Page 25

D) There  is  no  separate  trust  or  society  registered  in  the  name  of  the  `Dayanand  Institutions Solapur’.  This entity  appears to exist  only  on  the  letterhead  by  which  an  application  seeking  minority  status  was  submitted  to  the  Government on 6th July, 2007.

E) The representative of the Dayanand Anglo  Vedic College Trust And Management Society also  stated  that  the  Dayanand  Institutions  Solapur  were  working  in  Maharashtra  for  the  poor  students in Maharashtra in the best traditions of  an academic institution  wedded to the cause of  excellence  in  education.   They  also  stated  that  they could not recruit teachers with an excellent  academic  qualification  in  order  to  make  the  institution  an excellent  institution,  as they were  hampered by the requirement of the reservation  of  ST  and  other  reservations.   There  were  no  qualified excellent teachers available with an ST  background.  Hence  they  desired  to  avoid  this  requirement  of  reservations  in  recruitment  of  teachers by having a minority status.

F) In  regard  to  the  other  contentions  of  the  trust, it is clear that this application for a minority  status  is  being  made  by  the  `Dayanand  Anglo  Vedic  College Trust and Management Society’ of  Arya  Samaj  members  only  to  avoid  the  implementation  of  the  reservations  in  favour  of  Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and other  backward communities,  while recruiting teachers  and  staff  in  the  school.   This  is  against  the  constitutional  provisions  for  the  welfare  and  development  of  SCs  and  STs  and  cannot  be  accepted.

24. As noticed  above, the aforesaid order of the respondents  

dated 26.10.2009 was challenged before the Bombay High Court  in  

W.P.  No.1053  of  2010.   Dismissing  the  said  writ  petition,  the  High  

Court  noticed  the  fact  that  though  the  appellant  claimed  linguistic  

2

Page 26

minority  status,  but  all  the  trustees  of  the  appellant-Society  are  

residing in the area where majority language is Hindi.  The High Court  

took the view that the State Government had a right to correct the  

mistake if any certificate granting minority linguistic status is granted  

contrary  to  law.   The  High  Court  was  further  of  the  view  that  as  

admittedly the trustees of the appellant do not reside in the State of  

Maharashtra, where Hindi speaking people are  linguistic minority, the  

appellant-Trust/Society cannot claim to be a minority institution.  

25.   We have no doubt that the view taken by the High Court is  

justified. The rights conferred by Article 30 of the Constitution to the  

minority are in two parts.  The first part is the right to establish the  

institution of minority’s choice and the second part relates to the right  

to administration of such institution.  The word establishment herein  

means bringing into being of an institution and it must be by minority  

community.  The administration means management of the affairs of  

the  institution.  Reference  may  be  made  to  be  the  decision  of  this  

Court in the case of  State of Kerala Etc.   vs. Mother Provincial  

Etc. AIR 1970 SC 2079.  

26.  Similarly,  in  the  case of  S.P.  Mittal  Etc. vs.  Union of  

India and Others, AIR 1983 SC 1, this Court held that in order to  

claim the benefit of Article 30, the community must firstly show and  

prove that it is a religious or linguistic minority; and secondly, that the  

institution has been established by such linguistic minority.    

2

Page 27

27. In  the  case  of  A.P.  Christians  Medical  Educational  

Society  vs.  Government of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. AIR 1986 SC  

1490 (para 8), this Court elaborately discussed the rights guaranteed  

under Article 30 and held as under:-

“It  was seriously  contended before  us  that  any  minority, even a single individual belonging to a  minority,  could  found  a  minority  institution  and  had the right so to do under the Constitution and  neither the Government nor the University could  deny  the  society’s  right  to  establish  a  minority  institution,  at  the  very  threshold  as  it  were,  howsoever they may impose regulatory measures  in  the  interests  of  uniformity,  efficiency  and  excellence  of  education.  The  fallacy  of  the  argument  in  so  far  as  the  instant  case  is  concerned  lies  in  thinking  that  neither  the  Government nor the University has the right to go  behind the claim that the institution is a minority  institution  and  to  investigate  and  satisfy  itself  whether the claim is well founded or ill-founded.  The  Government,  the  University  and  ultimately  the court have the undoubted right to pierce the  `minority  veil’   with  due  apologies  to  the  Corporate Lawyers  and discover whether there is  lurking  behind  it  no  minority  at  all  and  in  any  case,  no  minority  institution.  The  object  of  Art.  30(1)  is  not  to  allow  bogies  to  be  raised  by  pretenders but to give the minorities `a sense of  security and a feeling of confidence’ not merely  by guaranteeing the right to profess, practise and  propagate religion to religious minorities and the  right  to  conserve  their  language,  script  and  culture to linguistic minorities, but also to enable  all  minorities,  religious  or  linguistic,  to establish  and  administer  educational  institutions  of  their  choice.  These  institutions  must  be  educational  institutions of  the minorities in truth and reality  and not  mere  masked phantoms.  They  may be  institutions intended to   give the children of the  minorities  the  best  general  and  professional  education,  to  make  them  complete  men  and  women of the country and to enable them to go  

2

Page 28

out  into  the world fully prepared and equipped.  They may be institutions where special provision  is  made  to  the  advantage  and  for  the  advancement of the minority children. They may  be institutions where the parents of the children  of  the  minority  community  may  expect  that  education in accordance with the basic tenets of  their religion would be imparted by or under the  guidance of teachers, learned and steeped in the  faith. They may be institutions where the parents  expect  their  children  to  grow  in  a  pervasive  atmosphere  which  is  in  harmony  with  their  religion or conducive to the pursuit of it. What is  important  and  what  is  imperative  is  that  there  must exist some real positive index to enable the  institution  to  be  identified  as  an  educational  institution of the minorities. We have already said  that  in  the  present  case  apart  from  the  half  a  dozen words `as a Christian minorities institution’  occurring  in  one  of  the  objects  recited  in  the  memorandum  of  association,  there  is  nothing  whatever, in the memorandum or the articles of  association  or  in  the  actions  of  the  society  to  indicate that the institution was intended to be a  minority educational institution. As already found  by us these half a dozen words were introduced  merely to found a claim on Art. 30(1). They were  a smoke-screen.”

28. In the case of S. Azeez Basha & Anr. Etc. vs. The Union  

of India Etc. AIR 1968 SC 662 (para 19), this Court considered the  

constitutional provisions and held as under:

“Under  Article  30(1),  "all  minorities  whether  based on religion or language shall have the right  to  establish  and  administer  educational  institutions of their choice". We shall proceed on  the  assumption  in  the  present  petitions  that  Muslims are a minority  based on religion.  What  then  is  the  scope  of  Article  30(1)  and  what  exactly  is  the  right  conferred  therein  on  the  

2

Page 29

religious minorities?  It is to our mind quite clear  that  Article  30(1)  postulates  that  the  religious  community  will  have  the  right  to  establish  and  administer educational institutions of their choice  meaning thereby that where a religious minority  establishes an educational institution, it will have  the  right  to  administer  that.  An  argument  has  been raised  to  the  effect  that  even though  the  religious  minority  may not  have established the  educational  institution,  it  will  have  the  right  to  administer  it,  if  by  some  process  it  had  been  administering  the  same  before  the  Constitution  came into force. We are not prepared to accept  this argument.  The Article in our opinion clearly  shows  that  the  minority  will  have  the  right  to  administer educational institutions of their choice  provided  they  have  established  them,  but  not  otherwise. The  Article  cannot  be  read  to  mean  that even if the educational institution has been  established  by  somebody  else,  any  religious  minority  would  have  the  right  to  administer  it  because, for some reason or other, it might have  been  administering  it  before  the  Constitution  came  into  force.  The  words  "establish  and  administer"  in  the  Article  must  be  read  conjunctively and so read it gives the right to the  minority  to administer  an educational  institution  provided  it  has  been  established  by  it.  In  this  connection our attention was drawn to In re: The  Kerala Education Bill,  1957,  1959 SCR 995: (AIR  1950 SC 956) where, it is argued, this Court had  held  that  the  minority  can  administer  an  educational institution even  though it might not  have established it. In that case an argument was  raised  that  under  Article  30(1)  protection  was  given only to educational institutions established  after  the  Constitution  came  into  force.  That  argument was turned down by this Court for the  obvious  reason  that  if  that  interpretation  was  given to Article 30(1) it would be robbed of much  of its content. But that case in our opinion did not  lay  down  that  the  words  "establish  and  administer"  in  Article  30(1)  should  be  read  disjunctively, so that though a minority might not  have established an educational institution it had  the right to administer it. It is true that at p. 1062  

2

Page 30

of  SCR;  (at  p.  992  of  AIR)  the  Court  spoke  of  Article 30(1) giving two rights to a minority i.e. (i)  to establish and (ii)  to administer.  But that was  said only in the context of meeting the argument  that  educational  institutions  established  by  minorities before the Constitution came into force  did not have the protection of Article 30(1).  We  are of opinion that nothing in that case justifies  the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners  that  the  minorities  would  have  the  right  to  administer an educational institution even though  the institution may not have been established by  them.  The  two  words  in  Article  30(1)  must  be  read together  and so read the Article gives the  right  to  the  minority  to  administer  institutions  established  by  it.   If  the  educational  institution  has not been established by a minority it cannot  claim  the  right  to  administer  it  under  Article  30(1). We have therefore to consider whether the  Aligarh University was established by the Muslim  minority; and if it was so established, the minority  would certainly have the right to administer it”.

(emphasis supplied)

29. In view of the opinion expressed by this Court in a catena  

of decisions, there cannot be any controversy that minorities in India  

have  a  right  to  establish  and administer  educational  institutions  of  

their  choice  and  the  State  Government  or  the  Universities  cannot  

interfere with the day-to-day management of such institutions by the  

members  of  minority  community.   At  the  same  time,  this  Court  

pointed  out  that  though  Article  30  itself  does  not  lay  down  any  

limitation upon the right  of  a minority  to administer  its educational  

institution but this right is not absolute.  This is subject to reasonable  

regulations for the benefit of the institution.  The State Government  

3

Page 31

and  Universities  can  issue  directions  from  time  to  time  for  the  

maintenance of the standard and excellence of such institution which  

is necessary in the national interest.

30. So  far  as  the  Government  Resolution  dated  4.7.2008  is  

concerned, it prescribes a procedure for granting minority status.  The  

Resolution, inter alia, permits the persons of the State of Maharashtra  

whose mother tongue is other Indian language than Marathi  will  be  

eligible  to  submit  an  application  for  recognition  of  their  linguistic  

minority  educational  institution.   The  only  rider  put  is  that  the  

minimum  2/3rd trustees  of  the  Management  Committee  of  the  

Society/Institution should be from the concerned minority community.

31. After giving our anxious consideration in the matter and in  

the light  of  the law settled by this Court,  we have no hesitation  in  

holding  that  in  order  to  claim  minority/linguistic  status  for  an  

institution in any State, the authorities must be satisfied firstly that  

the institution has been established  by the persons who are minority  

in such State; and, secondly,  the right of administration of the said  

minority linguistic institution is also vested  in those persons who are  

minority  in  such  State.   The  right  conferred  by  Article  30  of  the  

Constitution  cannot  be  interpreted  as if  irrespective  of  the  persons  

who established the institution in the State for the benefit of persons  

who are minority, any person, be it non-minority in other place, can  

administer  and  run  such  institution.   In  our  considered  opinion,  

3

Page 32

therefore,  the  order  passed  by  the  respondent-Authority  and  the  

impugned order passed by the Division Bench need no interference by  

this Court.  We, therefore, do not find any merit in this appeal which is  

accordingly dismissed.

…………………………………..J. (SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR )

……………………………………J. ( M.Y. EQBAL )

New Delhi March 22,  2013.

3

Page 33