The minority status cannot be given for a limited period, and the declaration of minority status is effective from the date of establishment of the institution until modified by a subsequent order.

1. This petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Prohibition, prohibiting the respondents from insisting the petitioner to seek declaration of its minority character every year or once in five years for Quaide Milleth College for Men, Medavakkam, Chennai.

2. The petitioner-Trust had established and administering Quaide Milleth College for Men, Medavakkam, Chennai, which had been conferred the status of religious minority for a period of five years from 2010-2011 by the 1st respondent herein, vide G.O. (Ms) No. 308, Higher Education (E1) Department, dated 21.09.2010. The petitioner therefore submitted a representation for renewal of confirmation of permanent minority status. Despite several reminders, there was no response from the respondents and hence, the petitioner is constrained to file the present writ petition.

3. The contention of the petitioner in the Writ Petition is that there is no provision to grant minority status for a limited period and that the declaration of minority status relates to the establishment of the Institution and also there is no provision to insist on renewal of minority status every year.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents cannot insist for renewal of minority status every year or once in five years. The matter is no more res-integra and there are several judgments of this Court clarifying this position.

5. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Secretary, Jeyaraj Annapackiam College for Women Autonomous vs. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary and Others, 2013 (8) MLJ 509, has held that the minority status cannot be given for a limited period. In another decision of the Division Bench of the Madurai Bench of this Court in the case of the State of Tamil Nadu vs. The Manager and Correspondent, Carpenter Street Middle School, Tuticorin, CDJ 2018 MHC 1496, after considering earlier judgments, has held as follows:

"10. In the decision in the Secretary, Jeyaraj Annapackiam College for Women Autonomous vs. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary and Others, 2013 (8) MLJ 509, the Division Bench of this Court has considered the earlier decision, which has been subsequently followed in two other decisions, which in turn make a reference as well as to the earlier decision in C.S.L. Institute of Technology, Thovalai vs. Government of Tamil Nadu, 2004 WLR 202 and in Asan Memorial Association vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, 2009 (6) CTC 579 and found that in the guideline issued by the Government in G.O. Ms. 270, Higher Education (J1) Department, dated 17.06.1998, nowhere, it has been stated that the minority status can be given for a limited period.

11. In the considered opinion of this Court, the said legal position is in subsistence, even as on today and the issue arose for consideration in this Writ Appeal is no longer res integra, in the light of the settled legal position. The learned Single Judge has correctly applied the same and quashed the impugned G.O. in so far as restricting the minority status for a limited period of five years."

6. The Supreme Court in the case of N. Ammad vs. The Manager, Emjay High School, CDJ 1998 SC 052, has held as follows:

"11. When the Government declared the school as a minority school it has recognised a factual position that the school was established and is being administered by a minority community. The declaration is only an open acceptance of a legal character which should necessarily have existed antecedent to such declaration. Therefore, we are unable to agree with the contention that the school can claim protection only after the Government declared it as a minority school on 02.08.1994."

7. The Supreme Court in the case of Manager, Corporate Educational Agency vs. James Mathew and Others, CDJ 2017 SC 986 has held that as certificate of declaration of minority status is only declaration of existing status, there is no question of availability of status only from date of declaration. The relevant portion of the