The fundamental right to linguistic minority status cannot be taken away without fundamental change of circumstances or suppression of facts, and administrative orders must adhere to the principles of natural justice.

K. NARAYANA KURUP, J.

The Managing Trustee of Thirumuruga Kirupananda Variyar Thavathiru Sundara Swamigal Medical, Educational and Charitable Trust, Salem (hereinafter referred to as the "Trust") had submitted an application to the Government of Tamil Nadu in terms of the guidelines laid down by the Government in G.O.Ms. No. 371, Education, Science and Technology Department, dated 10-5-1995, for declaring the medical institutions (subject-matter of this writ appeal) run by it at Salem as a Linguistic minority institution. The Government, after verification of the documents produced by the Trust, declared, vide G.O.Ms. No. 532, Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 27-10-1997, that the Vinayaga Missions Kirupananda Variyar Medical College run by the appellant/Trust is eligible for minority status on linguistic basis for 1997-98 (?) and the Chairman of the appellant/Trust was directed to admit students in the medical College run by it for the aforesaid year in the ratio of 50 : 50. Thereafter, the appellant sent a letter dated 20-1-1998 claiming extension of minority status to the institutions run by it for the year 1998-99. However, the Government, as per letter No. 3549/MCA 2/98, dated 29-9-1998 held that the institutions run by the appellant/Trust does not satisfy the guidelines, and therefore, the request of the appellant for extension of minority status came to be rejected. The rejection was in the light of the guidelines contained in G.O. Ms. No. 270, Higher Education (J1) Department, dated 17-6-1998. The appellant challenged the validity of the order of rejection passed by the Government in letter No. 3549/MCA 2/98, dated 29-9-1998 in W.P. No. 15517 of 1998, contending inter-alia that the status of the appellant, having been already declared by the Govenrment in G.O.Ms. No. 532, dated 27-10-1997 as a linguistic minority, the subsequent guidelines issued in G.O.Ms. No. 270, Higher Education (J1) Department, dated 17-6-1998, will apply only prospectively to new institutions and pending applications not affecting declarations already issued; the earlier order conferring linguistic minority status being one issued in the name of the Governor, the subsequent administrative order cannot override the earlier order, the reasons mentioned in the impugned order passed by the Government dated 29-9-1998, which run counter to the earlier order, cannot be substituted by raising new grounds in the counter affidavit, and since the community certificates issued by the competent authorities have not been invalidated, the impugned order dated 29-9-1998 passed by the Government which says that there is no evidence that all the Trustees have their mother-tongue as Telugu, is factually incorrect. A counter affidavit was filed by the Government to the said writ petition, sustaining the impugned order of rejection dated 29-9-1998 and traversing the various contentions raised by the appellant. Learned single Judge, as per order impugned herein, dismissed the writ petition holding that the appellant/Trust is not established by a linguistic minority, and on the other hand, it is established by an individual and his wife for a general purpose of the benefit of the Hinduism, and not to any particular community, and hence, this writ appeal by the appellant/Trust.

2. We heard Mr. Mohan Parasaran, learned counsel for the appellant/Trust and learned Senior Counsel Mr. G. Masilamani for the respondents.

3. According to learned counsel for the appellant, once linguistic minority status has been conferred upon the appellant/Trust on a meticulous appraisal of the materials produced before it, it is legally and constitutionally impermissible for the Government to go back upon it applying certain guidelines which are applicable only to pending applications, and that too, without affording an opportunity of being heard to the appellant in consonance with the principles of natural justice.

4. In our considered opinion, the appellant is well foun