SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(All) 791

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
(Lucknow Bench)
BEFORE : RAJAN ROY, J.
K.M. COLLEGE OF EDUCATION, MURIYA GHATAMPUR, KANPUR NAGAR AND ANOTHER ....Petitioners
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ....Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 4643, 4644 of 2013 and 7307 of 2014, decided on 29th July, 2015)

Advocates:
Counsel :
Prashant Chandra, Akshat Srivastava, Shashank Bhasin and Stuti Mittal for the Petitioners; C.S.C., A.S.G., Raj Kumar Singh, Saghir Hasan Khan, I.H. Faruqui, Ikhlaq Hussain Farooqui, Rahul Shukla and S.B. Pandey for the Respondents.

Headnote:Constitution of India, 1950—Articles 25 and 30—National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act, 2004—Sections 10, 11 (1), 12-C and 22(1)—Minority institution—Establishment—No Objection Certificate—Rejected—Challenge against—Out of seven founding members, five embraced Buddhism—And their society registered—Whether the Commission has “original jurisdiction” to grant no objection certificate for establishment which necessarily involves declaration of its minority status—‘Competent Authority’ under Section 10 and the “authority” mentioned in Section 12-B exercise original jurisdiction regarding declaration of minority status of an educational institution—And the Commission exercises appellate jurisdiction in respect of both—“Competent Authority” is only for the purpose of ascertaining the minority status of the institution proposed to be established—Section 10 applies only where a minority educational institution is ‘proposed’ to be established—NOC under Section 10 is to be applied before the concerned ‘competent authority’—Competent authority under Section 10 at the first instance and the Commission while exercising appellate jurisdiction under Section 12-A and 12-B read with Section 11 (f) and 12 have ample power to inquire, examine and determine the minority status of the proposed institution—Impugned orders of State Government declining to consider such application for grant of no objection certificate and declaration of minority status of an institution for want of authority are declared a nullity—Directions issued. [Paras 33 to 114]

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Rajan Roy, J.—Heard Sri Prashant Chandra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Akshat Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri I.H. Faruqui, appearing on behalf of opposite party No. 2, National Minority Commission, Sri Z. Jilani, learned Additional Advocate General for the State, Sri Mansoor Ahmad, Chief Standing Counsel for the State, Sri Rahul Shukla, learned Standing Counsel for the State in writ petition No. 7307/2014 and Sri S.B. Pandey for Union of India alongwith Sri Raj Kumar Singh.

2. All these writ petitions involve common question of facts and law, therefore, they have been heard and are being decided together by a common judgment.

3. Writ Petition No. 4643 (MS) of 2013 has been heard as a leading writ petition.

4. By means of these writ petitions, the petitioners, who are educational institutions claiming minority status have challenged the order passed by the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commission’) by which the application submitted by them for granting No Objection Certificate for establishing a minority educational institution and for declaration of their status as a minority has been rejected. The petitioners in W.P. No. 4643 (MS) of 2013 and 4644(MS) of 2013 are also assailing the Government order dated 19.8.2014 passed by the State Government during pendency of this writ petition on an application having been filed by them in pursuance to interim directions of this Court, whereby it has been held that the authority competent to give said declaration is the Commission and not the State Government. The petitioners are also seeking a declaration that they are deemed minority educational institutions under Section 10(3) of the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 2004).

5. The facts of the case, in brief, are as under :

Out of seven (7) founding members of petitioner No. 1, in Writ Petition No. 4643(MS) of 2013 five (5) embraced Buddhism on 8.8.2008. Certificates issued by Bhartiya Budh Samiti, Budh Vihar, Risaldar Park, Lucknow stating that said founding members had adopted Buddhism in place of their earlier religion i.e. Hinduism voluntarily and had been administered Baudh Diksha and are followers of Budhism, are on record. On 4.10.2008 the society of petitioners was registered, which runs the institution in question. On 20.8.2009 the NCTE granted recognition for 100 seats of B.Ed course for academic session 2009-10. The institution was established in the year 2009. On 16.6.2010 affiliation was granted to the institution in question under Section 37(2) of the Act, 1973 w.e.f. 1.7.2010 for B.Ed. Application was submitted before the Commission for grant of No Objection Certificate for establishing a minority educational institution on 26.12.2012. On 13.3.2013 the Tehsildar issued certificates to the founding member of the Institution to the effect that they belong to a minority community i.e. Buddhists.

6. Likewise, out of eighteen (18) founding members of petitioner No. 2 twelve (12) embraced Buddhism on 15.6.2003/4.5.2004. The institutions were established in the year 2006 as mentioned in the application submitted before the Commission. On 9.9.2006 the NCTE granted recognition to the said institution for 100 seats of B.Ed course w.e.f. 2006-07. On 22.11.2007, the requisite affiliation was granted by the State Government for the said B.Ed course. The society which at present runs the institution was surprisingly registered subsequently on 24.4.2009 as is evident from Annexure 9 to the writ petition. The application for grant of no objection certificate was submitted on 26.12.2012. On 13.3.2013 the certificates were issued by the Tehsildar in respect of twelve (12) founding members that they belong to a minority community i.e. Buddhists.

7. It is not in dispute that Buddhists have been declared as minority community both by the State Government and Cen























































































































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top