Allowed

The Correspondent, v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC7 Mar 2013WP(MD)/3559/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a writ petition filed by a minority college against the State Government's order restricting its minority status for five years. The court held the restriction invalid, declaring the minority status perpetual and reserving the Government's right to withdraw status only upon violation of minority character.

What did the court decide?

The impugned Government Order restricting minority status for five years was quashed; the status is held to be valid without restriction.

The Correspondent, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BE NCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :07.03.2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN

¶3

W.P(MD)No.3559 of 2013 and M.P(MD)Nos.1 & 2 of 2013

¶4

The Correspondent, Bethlahem College of Education, Karungal-629 157, Kanyakumari District. ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Fort.St.George, Chennai-600 006. 2.The Director of Collegiate Education, College Road, Chennai-600 006. 3.The T.N. Teacher Education University, Rep.by its Registrar, Lady Willingdon College Campus, Kamarajar Salai, Chennai-600 005. 4.The Regional Director, National Council for Teacher Education, The Southern Regional Committee, Jnana Bharathi Campus Road, Opp: National Law School, Bangalore-560 072. ... Respondents

¶5

Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned order issued by the first respondent State Government vide G.O.Ms.No.369 (Higher Education - E1) dated 13.10.2009 quash the same only in so far as it restricts the status of the petitioner's College as a minority educational institution to a limited period of five year from 2007-2012.

¶6

For Petitioner :Mr.Issac Mohanlal For Respondents :Mr.T.R.Janarthanan, Addl.Govt Pleader for R1 to R3.

¶7

ORDER

¶8

Mr.T.R.Janarthanan, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3. By consent, the writ petition https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission.

¶9

¶10

2.The Bethlahem College of Education, Karungal has been established and administered by a charitable Trust known as 'Nesamony Memorial Trust' and the Trust is running various educational institutions and it is a minority Trust. The State Government recognized the Bethlahem College of Education as a minority educational institution and passed G.O.Ms.No.369, Higher Education (E1) Department dated 13.10.2009, and as per the said G.O, the status shall continue for a period of five years from 2007-08 to 2011-2012. This G.O has been challenged in this writ by the petitioner stating that having granted minority status to the petitioner's institution, the Government cannot restrict the period to five years and thereafter the G.O has to be quashed in so far as it restricts the status of the petitioner's College as the minority educational institution up to the period of five years ending in 2012.

¶11

3.Mr.S.Xavier Rajini, learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment in The Secretary, Loyala College (Autonomous), Chennai34 -vs- The State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Secretary, Department of Higher Secondary Education, Chennai-6 and two others reported in 2012 (2) CWC 728 in support of his contention and submitted that in respect of the case which is subject matter 2012 (2) CWC 728 the Government has passed G.O.Ms.No.363, Higher Education(E1) Department, dated 08.10.2009 granting recognition as a Minority Educational Institution for a period of five years and that was challenged in that writ petition and the writ petition was allowed and therefore the present writ petition filed by the petitioner is also liable to be allowed and the clause in the G.O.(Ms) No.369 dated 13.10.2009, restricting the status of the minority institution for a period of five year has to be deleted.

¶12

4.Heard Mr.T.R.Janarthanan, learned Additional Government Pleader and he submitted that having regard to the order passed by this Court and reported in The Secretary, Loyala College (Autonomous), Chennai-34 -vsThe State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Secretary, Department of Higher Secondary Education, Chennai-6 and two others reported in 2012 (2) CWC 728 the Government cannot restrict the status for the period of five years and the order may be passed following the judgment cited above.

¶13

5.It is seen from the judgment reported in 2012 (2) CWC 728 a similar order was challenged by the Loyala College, following the order of the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Thirumurga Kirupananda Variyar Thavathiru Sundara Swamigal, Medical Educational and Charitable Trust, Salem represented by its Chairman -vs- State of Tamil Nadu and another reported in (2001) 3 M.L.J 433 that writ petition was allowed and held that the minority status granted by the Government was valid without any restriction and further held that if there is any change in the educational agency or any institution is run contrary to the Memorandum of Association, it is open to the Government to issue notice and pass fresh orders in accordance with law. In the impugned Government Order also it has been stated that if the Minority Institution by Commission or omission of any action does anything against the minority status, the Head of the Department shall being to the notice of the Government for withdrawal of the minority status and the Government may take further necessary action for withdrawal of the minority status https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ after giving an opportunity to the institution concerned. Therefore, having stated so in paragraph 3(ii), the first respondent ought not to have restricted the period for five years. Hence, the writ petition is

¶14

¶15

allowed and the minority status granted to the petitioner's Institution by G.O.(Ms)No.369 dated 13.10.2009 is valid without any restriction and if there is any change in the educational institution or if the institution does any act against the interest of the minority or the minority status, it is open to the Government to take necessary action by issuing notice to the petitioner and pass fresh orders in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶16

Gsr

¶17

Sd/Deputy Registrar[ACCOUNTS] /True copy/

¶18

Assistant Registrar

¶19

¶20

1.The Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Fort.St.George, Chennai-600 006. 2.The Director of Collegiate Education, College Road, Chennai-600 006. 3.The T.N. Teacher Education University, Rep.by its Registrar, Lady Willingdon College Campus, Kamarajar Salai, Chennai-600 005. 4.The Regional Director, National Council for Teacher Education, The Southern Regional Committee, Jnana Bharathi Campus Road, Opp: National Law School, Bangalore-560 072. +1 cc to Mr.Isaac Mohanlal, Advocate SR.No.12912. +1 cc to Special Government Pleader, SR.No.13067. W.P(MD)No.3559 of 2013 and M.P(MD)Nos.1 & 2 of 2013 Dated:07.03.2013 3P/7C RPB 15.03.2013

¶21

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

The Correspondent, v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Correspondent, v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M. Manimurugan, Vs the Commissioner

Vasantham Catering Vs the Anna University

Kumari Mavatta Arasu Rubber Vs the Commissioner and

P.Meenakumari Vs Teh Commissioner

M.Durairaj, Vs the Commissioner of Food

Kalarani, Vs the Range Deputy