School started by a Christian cannot be declared blindly as minority institution.

1. The plaintiff is the appellant. He filed a suit for declaration that St.Antonys Elementary (Primary) School in Nelakarisalkulam, Rayagiri Post, Sankarankoil Taluk, Tirunelveli District was a minority institution within the meaning of Art.30(1) of the Constitution of India and the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools Regulation Act and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant Government from enforcing several provisions of the said Act and the Rules to the said school. The defendant/the respondent herein resisted the suit stating that the plaintiff/appellant did not establish that it was a minority institution and that merely because the school was started by a Christian it would not become a minority institution.

2. The trial court, on consideration of the evidence of the plaintiff, who was examined as P.W.1 and Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-9 which marked through him, decreed the suit as prayed for.

3. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment dated 7.12.1982, the respondent/State of Tamil Nadu preferred an appeal before the lower appellate court which in turn allowed the same by dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff by the decree and judgment dated 31.7.1984. Hence, the second appeal by the plaintiff.

4. This Court, while admitting the second appeal, formulated the following substantial question of law arising for decision in this second appeal:Whether the lower appellate court has not properly appreciated the principle of Art.30((1) of the Constitution of India in holding that the plaintiff-Institution is not a minority Institution.

5. In elaboration of the substantial question of law, Mr.Peppin Fernando, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would strenuously contend that the lower appellate court reversed the well considered judgment of the trial court on an erroneous view of the Art.30((1) of the Constitution of India by holding that the appellant-school was not established as a minority school. He would also point out by reading the relevant portions of the evidence of P.W.1 and the plaint that the majority of the students are belonging to the Christian community and that they are being taught Bible.

6. By way of repelling such submission, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent, in justification of the decree and judgment of the lower appellate court, would contend that the lower appellate court appreciated the materials in the correct perspective and rightly held that there are no sufficient materials to hold that the plaintiff was minority institution.

7. The counsel for both the parties would cite several authorities to substantiate their respective contentions. It is unnecessary to refer all the decisions, since most of those decisions have been referred to in the judgment in Elkay Higher Secodary School v. State of Tamil Nadu Elkay Higher Secodary School v. State of Tamil Nadu Elkay Higher Secodary School v. State of Tamil Nadu , (1997)2 L.W. 213 rendered by Hon’ble Justice D.Raju (as he then was).

8. The lower appellate court based its conclusion mainly on the decision reported in Samuel v. District Educational Officer , A.I.R. 1982 A.P. 64: (1982)2 An.W.R. 457.

9. A perusal of these judgments would clearly show that the plaintiff has to establish by adducing sufficient materials that it is a minority institution. As defined in Sub-sec.(6) of Sec.2 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools Regulation Act, 1973. The said section provides thus:

“Minority school” means private school or its choice established and administered or administered, by any such minority whether based on religion or language as has the right to do so under clause (1) of Art.30 of the Constitution.

10. Mr.Peppin Fernando, the learned counsel for the appellant, would point out the relevant portions of evidence of P.W.1 the plaintiff. The extract of the said evidence is as follows:

"Tamil"

11. On the basis of the deposition given by P.W.1, it is argued by the counsel for the appellant tha