The decree obtained by the petitioner declaring it as a linguistic minority educational institution had reached finality, and the rejection of minority status was against the spirit of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India.

The petitioner The Nalloor Vettuvenni Kandan Sastha Devaswom College at Attoor and N.V.K.S. Educational Agency, Vettuvenni, Marthandam, Kanyakumari District preferred the present writ petition seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the order in Letter No.9688/E1/2000-4, Higher Education (E1) Department dated 10. 2001 on the file of the first respondent herein, quash the same and direct the first respondent to confer linguistic minority status to the petitioner.

2. Thewrit petitioner contends as follows:- The petitioner Trust and the Educational Agency is a linguistic minority within the meaning of Articles 30(1) and 26 of the Constitution of India. The object of the educational institutions is for promoting Malayalam speaking persons who are minority community in Tamil Nadu. The petitioner approached the civil court and obtained a decree in O.S.No.1276 of 1986 dated 11. 1987 on the file of the IX Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai declaring that the petitioner is a linguistic minority.

Responding to the letter dated 112. 1988 sent by the petitioner, the second respondent informed the petitioner that there was no need for declaring the institution as minority institution since the petitioner institution already obtained a decree from the competent court. The petitioner Trust and the Educational Agency has been enjoying the minority status in all respects. The Government of Tamil Nadu in G.O.Ms.No.270 Higher Education Department dated 16. 1998 issued guidelines for conferring minority status. The petitioner sent an application dated 211. 1998 to the second respondent and requested conferment of minority status to the educational institution of the petitioner. The first respondent, in his letter No.14775/E1/99-6 dated 22. 2000 rejected the request of the petitioner seeking conferment of minority status to the educational institution of the petitioner.

3. Contending that the first respondent cannot take a different view in the face of the decree obtained by the petitioner declaring the petitioner as minority institution, the present writ petition is filed seeking the aforesaid reliefs.

4. In the counter filed by the respondents, it has been categorically admitted that the petitioner Educational Agency had already obtained decree in O.S.No.1276 of 1986 dated 11. 1987 on the file of the IX Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras declaring it as a linguistic minority institution. It is further admitted that the second respondent, in fact, informed the petitioner that there was no need for declaring the institution as minority institution in view of the decree staring at the second respondent. It is also admitted that the petitioner college has been so far treated as linguistic minority college, in the aftermath of the decree passed by the competent civil court declaring it as linguistic minority institution. Contending that the Supreme Court of India was pleased to stay the operation of the decree and orders that had been passed by the civil court in respect of the minority status to the institutions concerned and direct the institutions claiming minority status to approach the Government for a declaration, G.O.Ms.No.270 Higher Education Department dated 16. 1998 was issued to verify and determine the minority status of an educational institution in terms of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. It is contended that the first respondent, having given an opportunity to the petitioner and after verifying all the records/documents submitted by the petitioner, weighed the merit of the claim made by the petitioner and passed the impugned order which is very much valid in the eye of law.

5. Thequestions that arise for determination before this court are:-

.(1) Whether the order passed by the Supreme Court of India in I.A.No.20 in W.P.(C) No.317 of 1993 dated 110. 1994 (T.M.A. Pai Foundation and other cases) would apply to the petitioner institution which was not one of