The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the maintainability of a writ petition against a minority institution, the nature of the office held by the respondent, and the applicability of the doctrine of latches.

( 1 ) THE prayer in this petition is for issuance of a writ tn the nature of quo warranto calling upon the Respondent No. 1 to show the authority by which he is holding office of the Principal of girls High School and College, Allahabad. A further prayer is that by issuing a writ of mandamus the Respondent No. 1 restrained from acting as Principal of Girls High School and college, Allahabad.

( 2 ) AFTER exchange of pleadings, when the matter was taken upon, a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of respondents that this petition is not maintainable on various grounds as will be dealt with later on and therefore, this petition be dismissed without going into the merit of the matter.

( 3 ) SRI Ravi Kant, learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the petitioners and Sri A. D. Saunders, learned Advocate who appeared for the respondents, have been heard.

( 4 ) SRI A. D. Saunders representing the respondents as stated above, relying upon the decisions namely (1) Manager St. Thomas U. P. Kerala and Anr. v. Commissioner, JT 2002 (1) 439, (2) St. Josephs Higher Secondary School v. Ravi Shanker Sharma, AIR 1976 Alld. 390, (3) Committee of Management v. Girdhari Singh, JT 2001 (4) 355, (4) Smt. Sudesh Mukul v. The State of U. P. , 1997 (1) UPLBEC 18, (5) Kumari Anita Verma v, DAY College, 1992 (1) UPLBEC 30. (6) N. Ahmad v. Manager and Ors. , AIR 1999 SC 50, (7) Chander Mohan Khanna v. NCERT, AIR 1992 SC 76. (8) Tekraj Vasan-di alias K. L. Basandi v. The Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 463, (9) Jagram v. Gwalior Town and Country Development Authority, AIR 1987 MP. 11. (11), K. J. Joseph v. K. Sukumaran and Ors. , AIR 1987 SC 140, (13) Devi Prasad Shukla v. State of U. P. , 1989 AWC 454 (DB ). (14) State of U. P. v. Dina Nath Shukla, 1997 (2) UPLBEC (SC) 964, (15)B. V. Siviah and Anr. v. K. Addanki Babu and Ors. , JT 1998 (5) SC 96 and (16) Devi Prasad shukla v. State of U. P. , 1989 AWC 454. has raised preliminary objection about maintainability of this petition, on the following grounds;

(i) No writ petition is maintainable against minority Institution. (ii) The institution is unaided private Institution and is not state within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. (iii) The office held by Respondent No. 1 is not a public office and therefore, no writ of quo warranto lies. (iv) The writ petition suffers from latches.

( 5 ) TO meet, the aforesaid preliminary objections about the maintainability of the writ petition against minority institution and institution being unaided private institution is not the state within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, on the grounds so stated by learned counsel for the respondents, Sri Ravi Kant learned Senior Advocate who appears for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decisions viz. 2001. UPLBEC Vol. 3 page 2259. 2000 SCC vol. 2 page 42, 1993 AIR SC Vol. 2 page 2178, 1998 AIR SC Vol. 1 page 295. 1995 UPLBEC vol. 1 page 265, 1997 SC Vol. 3 page 571, 1992 AWC page 301. To meet the submission that the office held by Respondent No. 1 is not public office, and no writ will lie, reliance has been placed on the decisions reported in 1991 AWC (Suppl.) 259. In respect to the last ground taken to support the plea of non maintainability of the writ petition, i. e. , latches, learned counsel takes strength from the decision reported in AIR 1993 (Vol. 2) SC 1873.

( 6 ) IN view of the aforesaid rival contentions, the Court proposes to deal with the cases as placed from either sides on the points staled above; a : Maintainability of the writ petition against minority Institution and further the same being unaided private Institution.

( 7 ) IN the decision as referred by the learned counsel for the respondents reported JT 2002 (1) SC 439 Manager, St. Thomas U. P. Kerala v. Commissioner and Ors. , it has been laid down that merely on the ground that the School was set up by individual and not by a minority community, it cannot claim protection of Article 30 of th