The criteria of NRI fixed by Justice R. J. Shah Committee are not contrary to the directions issued by the Supreme Court for the Academic Year 2006-2007 and the cancellation of admission by Justice R. J. Shah Committee, based upon such criteria not fulfilled by the students, cannot be said to be unreasonable or arbitrary, which requires any interference by this Court.

( 1 ) THIS group of cognate petitions involves issue as to whether each of the petitioners falls within the concept nri for the purpose of seeking admission to self-financed unaided institutions [hereinafter to be referred to as sfi ] conducting Medical, Dental and other such professional courses, pursuant to the order passed by Their Lordships on 8th January 2007 in. A Nos. 16-18, 19-21 in Civil Appeal No. 4480 of 2006 and. A. Nos. 22-25 in. A. Nos. 16-18 in Civil Appeal No. 4480 of 2006 with. A. Nos. 11-14 in Civil Appeal No. 4482 of 2006.

( 2 ) THEREAFTER, all the matters were listed before the learned Single Judge (Coram: D. A. Mehta, J.) on 17th January 2007 and, by order dated 17th January 2007, the learned Single Judge has observed as under:

1. This petition and the group of cognate petitions involve the issue as to whether each of the petitioners fall within the concept of "nri" for the purpose of seeking admission to self-financed unaided institutions conducting medical, dental and other such professional courses. 2. Vide order dated 13th November, 2006 made in interlocutory applications Nos. 9-10 and 11-12 in Civil Appeal No. 4480/06, the Apex Court has specified the following three categories to be treated as being eligible for the purpose of seeking admission in the NRI quota in the self-financed institutions. 1] The students be admitted as NRIs in NRI quota as against 15%: At least one of the parents of such students should be an NRI and shall ordinarily be residing abroad as an NRI; 2] The person who sponsors the student for admission should be a first degree relation of the student and should be ordinarily residing abroad as an NRI; 3] If the student has no parents or near relatives or taken as a ward by some other nearest relative such students also may be considered for admission provided the guardian has bona fide treated the student as a ward and such guardian shall file an affidavit indicating the interest shown in the affairs of the student and also his relationship with the student and such person also should be an NRI, and ordinarily residing abroad.

( 3 ) THERE is no dispute between the parties in relation to first two categories. In relation to the third category this Court has already taken a view that there can be a guardian of a ward only in a case where either parent is not alive. The petitioners and respondent No. 1-Committee are reading the third category as enunciated by the Apex Court to mean that there could be a guardian even in a case where either parent is alive.

( 4 ) IN the case of Vishal Nilesh Mandlewala v. Justice R. J. Shah (Retd.) and Ors. in Special Civil Application No. 20819 of 2006 vide judgment dated 10th November, 2006, I have stated as under: 23. Thus on a conjoint reading of the scheme under the Guardians Act and the scheme under the Hindu Minority Act (bearing in mind that the latter Act is supplemental to the Act of 1890) the position in law is that in case of a Hindu minor during existence of a natural guardian the Court is not authorized to appoint any other person as a Guardian and if any such order is made the same would be bad in law. The only exception being, where the Court finds that the natural guardian is not fit to continue as a guardian of the minor. 24. The father of a child is the first person to be a natural guardian followed by the mother. Only in absence of the natural parents can the question arise as to appointment of any other person, including a relative, as a guardian. Once it is found that a natural guardian is alive, and is otherwise not unfit legally to act as a guardian, no Court can exercise power to appoint any other person as a guardian. If a Court established in India is not so empowered no foreign Court can be stated to have any such power.

( 5 ) THE aforesaid Category No. 3 laid down by the Apex Court specifically opens with the phrase "if the student has no parents or near relatives. . . ". The submission on behalf of the peti