Back
2015 Supreme(Cal) 238
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE & SHIVAKANT PRASAD, JJ.
West Bengal Board of Secondary Education and Others – Appellants
Vs.
Bhagawandas Haralalka and Others – Respondents
F.M.A. No. 742 of 1987
Decided On : 21.4.2015
The determination of minority status under Article 30 would depend upon an execution to be done as per the guidelines in the case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation, (AIR 2003 SC 355) (supra).
Headnote:
MINORITY INSTITUTION - ARTICLE 30 - WEST BENGAL MINORITIES COMMISSION ACT, 1996 - Whether the concerned schools would be entitled to the benefit of Article 30 of the Constitution as a Linguistic Minority in the State.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the minority status of certain schools under Article 30 of the Constitution. The schools were established by a trust founded by a member of the Hindi speaking linguistic minority community. The West Bengal Board of Secondary Education appointed an administrator over the schools, which was challenged by the trustees. The trustees argued that the schools were entitled to minority status and that the appointment of an administrator was a violation of their rights under Article 30.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the determination of minority status under Article 30 would depend upon an execution to be done as per the guidelines in the case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation. The court also held that the State, in their wisdom, established a Commission for the said purpose and that it was for the Commission to consider such issue.
Issues: 1. Whether the schools were entitled to minority status under Article 30 of the Constitution. 2. Whether the appointment of an administrator over the schools was a violation of the trustees' rights under Article 30.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the decision in T.M.A. Pai Foundation, (AIR 2003 SC 355) (supra), which held that Linguistic Minority would be covered by Article 30 and for the purpose of determination the State would be the appropriate authority. The court also relied on the decision in Dayanand Anglo Vedic (Dav) College Trust and Management Society vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, 2013 (4) SCC 14 : AIR 2013 SC 1420, which held that in order to claim minority/linguistic status for an institution in any State, the authority must be satisfied firstly, that the institution has been established by the persons belonging to the minority community in the State and the right of administration was vested in those persons belonging to the Linguistic Minority community.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the appeal without any order as to costs and permitted the respondents to approach the Commission to get their desired relief.
ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE, J.
1. In 1930 late Ramrick Das Haralalka established a hospital in his name. He also established educational institution, erected temple, bathing place (ghat) in various parts of South Calcutta. In 1936 he set up educational institution for Hindi Speaking Linguistic Minority community in the city. As per the direction of University of Calcutta, Ramrick established Hindi High School at 4, Padda Pukur Road. Time to time, various schools were established by him and his successor both before and after independence of our country. Those institutions are recognized as Adarsh Hindi High School. We are told, there are about fourteen institutions however, the present appeal would relate to only one or two institutions as the others would not have any controversy, at least not brought before us. In 1950 the founders, donors and guardians of the students of Adarsh Hindi School passed a resolution to form a Trust to administer the affairs of the school. The assets and properties belonging to the school vested in the said Trust. The Trust thereafter established schools of the like nature at Tollygunge, Kidderpore and Behala. By letter dated December 29, 1977 the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education appointed administrator over the Bhowanipore School and by a subsequent letter dated May 19, 1975 they also appointed administrator over the girls section of the Bhowanipore School. In 1979, the Board approved the special constitution for Kidderpore branch. By a separate letter dated November 13, 1978 the Board also approved the special constitution for Bhowanipore branch. The similar approval was given in respect of Tollygunge branch vide letter dated November 20, 1978.
2. In 1981, the appellant filed a writ petition for setting aside the appointment of administrator. The Learned single Judge directed the administrator to hold election as per the special constitution. The series of litigations pertaining to the administration of the school inter alia challenging the appointment of administrator and action done by him, would result in various directions from this Court that we would be referring to as and when relevant. In 1984, the trustees filed litigation inter alia demanding special treatment under Article 30 of the Constitution that ultimately culminated in an order of the Apex Court appointing ad hoc committee for three schools vide order dated July 21, 2000. The trustees further applied before the Apex Court for extending the identical benefit to the remaining ten schools. Vide order dated October 28, 2003 the Hon'ble Apex Court remitted the matter back to this Court for fresh consideration in the light of a decision of the Apex Court in the case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Others vs. State of Karnataka and Others, 2002 (8) SCC 481 : AIR 2003 SC 355. Accordingly, the Division Bench considered the matter and held, the appointment of administrator was in violation of the direction of the Apex Court. The Division Bench formed ad hoc committee to be constituted for each school. Accordingly, the appeal came up on remand to this Court that we heard on the above mentioned dates.
3. Mr. Himadri Barua learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, Board would rely upon the decision in the case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation, (AIR 2003 SC 355) (supra), he would rely upon paragraph 161 that would empower the State to consider as to whether a particular institution would be recognized under Article 30 as an institution run by the Linguistic Minority. The Apex Court framed eleven questions for consideration. We would only be concerned with question 1 that is quoted below:
"Q. 1. What is the meaning and content of the expression 'minorities' Article 30 of the Constitution of India?
A. Linguistic and religious minorities are covered by the expression 'minority' under Article 30 of the Constitution. Since reorganization of the States in India has been on linguistic lines, therefore, for the purpose of determining the minority, the
