Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESWARAN
N. Parameswara Kurup (Died) and Others - Appellant
Versus
State of T.N. and Others - Respondent
Case No : S. As. 1847 of 1979 and 41 and 69 of 1980
Decided On : 23 July 1984
MINORITY EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS - RIGHT TO ESTABLISH AND ADMINISTER - INTERPRETATION OF ART.30(1) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - TAMIL NADU RECOGNISED PRIVATE SCHOOLS (REGULATIONS) ACT 29 OF 1974 - S.2(6) - MEANING OF 'MINORITY SCHOOL' - ESTABLISHMENT AND ADMINISTRATION BY MINORITY - REASONABLE REGULATIONS - VALIDITY - TRANSFER OF DISTRICT TO ANOTHER STATE - EFFECT ON MINORITY STATUS - PROTECTION UNDER ART.30(1) - NOTICE UNDER S.80 C.P.C. - NECESSITY.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs, managers of three schools in Kanyakumari district, filed suits for a declaration that their schools were linguistic minority educational institutions under Art.30(1) of the Constitution of India and for an injunction restraining the State of Tamil Nadu from enforcing certain provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulations) Act 29 of 1974. The schools were established before the transfer of Kanyakumari district to Tamil Nadu from the erstwhile Travancore-Cochin State. The trial court and the appellate court dismissed the suits, holding that the schools were not minority schools. The plaintiffs appealed to the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court allowed the appeals and held that the plaintiffs were entitled to the protection under Art.30(1) of the Constitution of India. The court interpreted Art.30(1) to mean that minorities have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice, and that this right cannot be whittled down by reasonable regulations. The court also held that the transfer of Kanyakumari district to Tamil Nadu did not affect the minority status of the plaintiffs, and that they were entitled to the protection under Art.30(1) despite the fact that they were not a minority at the time of the establishment of the schools. The court further held that the suit in O.S. 9 of 1977 was not bad for want of notice under S.80 C.P.C., as the plaintiffs had filed a writ petition challenging the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulations) Act 29 of 1974 and had been granted three months' time to seek a remedy by way of suit.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to the protection under Art.30(1) of the Constitution of India, despite the fact that they were not a minority at the time of the establishment of the schools? 2. Whether the transfer of Kanyakumari district to Tamil Nadu affected the minority status of the plaintiffs? 3. Whether the suit in O.S. 9 of 1977 was bad for want of notice under S.80 C.P.C.?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Art.30(1) of the Constitution of India gives minorities the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. This right cannot be whittled down by reasonable regulations. 2. The transfer of Kanyakumari district to Tamil Nadu did not affect the minority status of the plaintiffs, as they were a minority at the time of the transfer. 3. The suit in O.S. 9 of 1977 was not bad for want of notice under S.80 C.P.C., as the plaintiffs had filed a writ petition challenging the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulations) Act 29 of 1974 and had been granted three months' time to seek a remedy by way of suit.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, the judgments and decrees of the courts below were set aside, and the suits were decreed as prayed.
These second appeals arise out of a common judgment pronounced in A.S.96 of 1978,117 of 1978 and 133 of 1978 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Padmanabhapuram, which in turn were filed against the judgments in O.S. Nos. 219 of 1977, 9 of 1977 and 481 of 1977 respectively on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram. O.S. 9 of 1977 was filed by one Parameswara Kurup for a declaration that the Thiruvattar High School at Thiruvattar, Kalkulam taluk, now in Kanyakumari district, under the management of the plaintiff is a linguistic minority educational institution coming under the purview of Art.30(1) of the Constitution of India and for a consequential injunction restraining the defendant-State of Tamil Nadu from enforcing certain provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 29 of 1974. O.S. 219 of 1977 was filed by one Sankaran Pillai for a declaration that the Sree Krishnavilasom Middle School, Muttakadu under the management of the plaintiff is a minority school coming under the purview of Art.30(1) of the Constitution of India and for consequential injunction restraining the defendant-State of Tamil Nadu from enforcing the provisions of Act 29 of 1974. O.S. 481 of 1977 was filed by one Vasudevan Thampi for a declaration that the Aided High School, Orappanavilai in Manavalakurichi village, Kalkulam taluk, under the management of the plaintiff is a minority educational institution within the meaning of S.2(6) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private School Regulation Act 29 of 1974, and Art. 30(1) of the Constitution of India and for consequential injunction restraining the defendant-State of Tamil Nadu from enforcing certain provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 29 of 1974.
2. In O.S. 9 of 1977, the plaintiff contended that the Thiruvattar High School at Thiruvattar, Kalkulam taluk, was established in the year 1928 on his own lands of 4.5 acres, that he has been the Manager-cum-Headmaster of the school ever since its inception and even though the school was originally intended mainly for the benefit of the students of the Nair community in and around the village of Thiruvattar, it has been imparting education to students of all communities. He further contended that the High School is a minority educational institution coming within the purview of Art.30(1) of the Constitution of India. In O.S. No.219 of 1977, the plaintiff pleaded that he is the Manager of the Sree Krishnavilasam Middle school, Muttukadu, which was started by the plaintiff in 1953 mainly for the benefit of the Malayalees, who form a minority section of the people of the locality and that the school satisfied all the conditions of a minority school. In O.S. 481 of 1977, the plaintiff pleaded that he has established the Aided High School, Orappanavillai, Kalkulam taluk as early as in 1947 and it is a linguistic minority school coming within the purview of Sec.2(6) of Act 29 of 1974 and Art.30(1) of the Constitution of India.
3. In all these cases, the suits were resisted by the defendant-State of Tamil Nadu, on the ground that the schools referred to are not linguistic minority schools. One of the contentions of the State in O.S. 9 of 1977 was that the suit is bad for want of notice under S.80 C.P. Code. The trial Court dismissed all the three suits holding that they are not minority schools, and, therefore not entitled to the protection under Art.30(1) of the Constitution of India. The appellate Court also confirmed the judgments of the trial Court and dismissed all the three appeals. The aggrieved plaintiffs have now preferred the 'above second appeals.
4. The learned appellate Judge, while disposing of the appeals, followed the decision reported in Azeez Badsha v. Union of India, and observed that the minority will have the right to administer the educational institutions of their choice provided they have established them, but not otherwise. His view was that when the schools were established, they were then in the erstwhile Travancore-Cochin State
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
