JUDGMENT :

Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.

1. This appeal once again raises the continuing legal strife on behalf of the minority institutions claiming protection under Article 30 of the Constitution of India to urge that their inviolable protected rights are being infringed by an effort of the State by impinging upon their existing rights to continue to enjoy the status of a minority institution established and administered by a religious minority, without there being any violation of law or mismanagement or any concern of public or national interest. The litigation again brings to the fore an assertion of such rights by educational institutions claiming protection under Article 30 of the Constitution of India as against State control being imposed in the manner of recognition and continuing recognition of minority status of such institutions.

2. A learned single Judge allowed the petition of the respondent institution assailing the time limit of five years fixed by the State in the Government Order dated 16-07-2012 to the validity of a certificate recognising the minority status of the institution. This appeal has been preferred by the State, assailing the judgment dated 10.03.2016 of the learned single Judge, which is also excessively barred by time, that was noted in our order dated 09.07.2020 extracted hereinunder:-

"We have heard learned Special Government Pleader and we have also perused the order dated 18.02.2013 passed by the Apex Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu and another v. Thirumuruga Kirupananda Variyar.

2. The issue raised is about virtually granting a temporary recognition of minority status of an institution, which claims to have established itself as a minority institution and is also administering the same as such. The concept of such temporary status does not appeal to reason and the same also prima facie cannot be a ground to urge that this is a reasonable restriction, even if the rights secured under Part III of the Constitution may not be absolute vis-a-vis the controversy in question. We are, therefore, yet to find out as to how the State can grant a temporary minority status which does not appear to be emanating from any of the fundamental rights pertaining to the minorities under Part III of the Constitution of India.

3. Learned counsel for the State has urged that this recognition and any order passed by the State authority can be taken up in an appeal as per the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sisters of St. Joseph of Cluny and others v. State of West Bengal and others, reported in (2018) 6 SCC 772, para 19 onwards. He prays that he may be granted some more time to further study the matter in depth and then assist the Court.

4. We may also point out that there is a delay in presentation of the appeal of 978 days and then again a delay in the re-presentation of 253 days, which shall also be dealt with whenever the matter is taken up next.

List on 06.08.2020, as prayed for."

3. A preliminary objection raised by the State to the maintainability of the writ petition is based on the pronouncement of the Apex Court in the case of Sisters of St. Joseph of Cluny (supra), to contend that any such dispute pertaining to the claim of an institution to be treated as a minority institution on a permanent basis has to go before the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions under the 2004 Act and therefore, the writ petition ought to have been dismissed.

4. The second contention on merits is that the exercise of power by the State by limiting the recognition of a status to a certain period is only regulatory in nature, and not prohibitory, so as to impinge upon fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 30 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that it is in the nature of a reasonable restriction to supervise, control and monitor the administrative set up of such a college so as to prevent any maladministration or mis-management. It is urged that it is to ensure that there is no deviation