D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.

( 1 ) RULE, by consent returnable forthwith. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents waives service. By consent of Counsel and at their request taken up for hearing and final disposal.

( 2 ) IN this batch of petitions, a decision arrived at by the Pravesh Niyantran samiti on 10th June, 2005 of declining to enhance the management quota for admissions at professional institutions established and administered by minorities, from 50% to 100% of the total intake has been called into question. The Samiti was set up by the Government of Maharashtra in pursuance of the decision of the Supreme Court in Islamic Academy of Education vs. State of karnataka, (2003)6 SCC 697. The three institutions in question in the three petitions before the Court, provide instruction in Architecture, Pharmacy and management Sciences. None of the institutions is in receipt of grant-in-aid from the State Government or the Central Government. There is no dispute before the court about the position that these three institutions have been established and are being administered by a religious minority consisting of persons who practice and profess Islam.

( 3 ) THE judgment of the Supreme Court in T. M. A. Pai Foundation vs. State of Karnataka, (2002)8 SCC 481 was delivered on 31st October, 2002. The constitution Bench of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in Islamic academy of Education vs. State of Karnataka, (2003)6 SCC 697 on 14th August, 2003. On 16th February, 2004, the Government of Maharashtra issued a resolution by which the management quota for all minority run educational institutions in the State was fixed at 50%.

( 4 ) UPON the constitution of the Samiti, the petitioners filed appeals in order to press their claim for the enhancement of the management quota to cover all the admissions at these institutions. On 19th August, 2004, the Samiti maintained the quota for the Academic Year 2001-05 since the admissions process had reached an advanced stage, reserving liberty to the institutions to apply for an enhancement of the quota during the next Academic Year. Accordingly, appeals were filed on 30th November, 2004 in order to challenge the Government resolution of 16th February, 2004. On 19th March, 2005, the Samiti rejected appeals filed by the Institutions and reiterated that the management quota for the academic Year 2005-06 shall continue to remain at 50%. The Samiti was of the view that since the issue was pending before a Bench of seven learned Judges of the Supreme Court, it should not intervene at that stage. Subsequently, on 25th april, 2005, the Samiti decided to have a fresh look at the management quota for minority institutions and allowed the institutions to submit data regarding (i) the number of seats or the strength of admissions during the previous two years; (ii) the number of applications received; (iii) the number of admissions granted; (iv) allotment of students received from the Government; and (v) information in respect of local needs. The petitioners thereupon submitted by a letter dated 27th april, 2005, data reflecting the seats which were filled up against the management quota during the Academic Years 2003-04 and 2004-05, the names of candidates who had applied for admissions and the candidates who could not be eventually admitted. This data was submitted to the Samiti in support of the contention of the petitioners that the management quota was inadequate to meet the needs and requirements of these minority institutions and the religious minorities concerned. By a decision arrived at on 10th June, 2005, the Samiti declined to revise the quota and maintained the management quota at 50% for minority institutions.

( 5 ) THE submission which has been urged in support of these petitions is that the Samiti has furnished no reason whatsoever for declining to accede to the request made by the managements for the enhancement of the management quota. It has been submitted that though data was p