Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
16. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned counsel submitted that in P.A. lnamdar case (supra), the question that arose for consideration before the 7-Judge Bench has been left untouched observing that the said questions have been dealt with by the regular Bench.
17. The main grievance of the appellant-Society is that the impugned order of withdrawal of recognition made by the State authorities is erroneous and contrary to the provisions of Government Resolution dated 4.7.2008 which prescribes the procedure for granting minority status. The appellant-Society H alleged to have fulfilled all the conditions specified in the said DAYANANDANGLO VEDIC (DAV) COLLEGE TR. AND MANG 837 SOC. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [M.Y EQBAL, J.] Resolution dated 4.7.2008 and thereby made itself eligible and qualified for grant of recognition as linguistic minority. As noticed above, the resolution dated 4.7.2008 issued by the Minority Development Department of the State of Maharashtra lays down the conditions and procedure for the grant of certificate of minority linguistic character of the institution. The relevant portion of the Resolution reads as under: "RESOLUTION: The issue of making existing procedure easy for granting the recognition as cadre as religious/ linguistic minority societies which are being conducted by the minorities was under the consideration of the State Government for some time. Accordingly, after consulting with the experts in this field interested persons and taking into consideration directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this connection from time to time after superseding the Central Administration Department, Resolution No.MS- 2006/634/CR-63/2006/35, dt. 11.6.2007, the Government of Maharashtra is prescribing terms and conditions and procedure for providing recognition of religious/societies conducted/managed by the State as detailed hereunder:- (1) The Competent Authority for providing recognition of minority cadre: For providing recognition of religious linguistic minority cadre to the educational societies managed by minorities of the State, State Government has declared by the Principal Secretary/Secretary Minority Development Department, Government of Maharashtra as Competent Authority as per Government Notification No. MES-2008/CR-149/08/E-1: dt. 4.7.2008. (2) Touchstones for the eligibility of the recognition for religious linguistic minority: c (1) Those educational societies to whom recognition has been granted prior to 11.6.2007 as per specific order or letter or in accordance with General Administration Department, Government Resolution No.ME S-2006/634/C R-63/2006/35 dated 11.6.2007 as minority educational institutions/societies; such educational societies/institutions are not required to submit application again for the recognition of the minority cadre. However, conditions prescribed at para-5 hereunder will be applicable to all such societies. (2) It is necessary that applicant minority institution/society shou Id have been registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860 or Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 or other concerned statute. The concerned minority society of the institution should have mentioned in its bye-laws of rules of which the religious/linguistic minority communities that society belong, it has been established to protect that the interest that minority community. (3) Institution/society of all religions which have been notified by the Central Government/ Maharashtra Government will be eligible to submit the application for obtaining the recognition for their educational institutions as religious minority educational institution. (4) Educational institution of such persons whose mother tongue is other Indian language than Marathi will be eligible to submit the application for the recognition of minority educational society of education. DAYANAND ANGLO VEDIC (DAV) COLLEGE TR. AND MANG 839 SOC. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [M.Y. EQBAL, J.] (5) It is necessary that minimum 2/3rd trustees of the Management Committee of the Applicant Society/institution should be from concerned minority community." (emphasis given)
18. From a perusal of the relevant provisions of the Resolution quoted hereinabove, it is manifest that one of the conditions, inter alia, is that the educational institutions of such persons whose mother tongue is other Indian language than Marathi will be eligible to submit their application for recognition and that minimum 2/3rd trustees of the Management Committee of the Society or institution should be from concerned minority community. In other words, as per the Resolution, 2/3rd of the trustees of the Management Committee of the Society should be from minority community.
19. On a perusal of the documents contained in the paperbook, the following facts emerged: (i) By communication dated 28.06.2006 issued by the Urban Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Department, Government of Maharashtra, the Director, Higher Education, Maharashtra State, Pune, was informed that on the basis of the representation submitted by Dayanand Institutions at Solapur for providing minority cadre (Hindi linguistic), the Government has granted minority cadre (Hindi linguistic) to the higher colleges (degree colleges) managed by the Dayanand Institutions, Solapur for two educational years i.e. 2006-07 and 2007- 2008. (ii) In the application dated 6.7.2007 submitted by the appellant for obtaining sanction of religious/ linguistic minority, although in column No.1 of the form of application, name of the Society has been shown as Dayanand Anglo Vedic (DAV) College Trust and Management Society, New Delhi, but other required information has been given in the manner hereinunder:- c Whether minimum 2/3rd persons or trustees/ members of Board of Directors who are looking after the business of the society are from minority/ linguistic group, if yes, their numbers. All Trustees/Members of the Board of Directors of the Society who are looking after the business of the society are from Arya Community and their mother tongue is Hindi
20. It is, therefore, clear that the appellant has not correctly furnished the required information, inasmuch as it was not said that the Trustees/Members of the Board of Directors, who are looking after the business of the Society, are non-minority. D Obviously, the reason is that the persons or trustees, who are managing the business of the Society are non-minority i.e. residing in New Delhi and not in the State of Maharashtra.
21. The Certificate of Recognition was granted for the year E from 2004-2008 in the name of appellant's institution i.e. Educational Trust and Management Society, Solapur. For better appreciation, the last Certificate granted on 11.7.2008 for the academic year 2008-09 is reproduced hereinbelow:- "GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA Competent Authority and Principal Secretary Minority Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-400032. No.MES-2007/264/CR-145/2007/35/D-1 Date:11.7.2008 CERTIFICATE FOR THE RECOGNITION OF MINORITY CADRE Educational Trust and Management Society, Solapur had submitted the Application on 9.7.2007 for obtaining certificate for the reorganization of their society in the cadre as Linguistic Minority Educational Institute. During the DAYANAND ANGLO VEDIC (DAV) COLLEGE TR. AND MANG 841 SOC. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [M.Y EQBAL, J.] hearing which was conducted of the said Institute before me on 11.7.2008, on the basis of submissions made by the Officials of the Institute, I have satisfied that, the said Institute is being established and conducted through persons from Linguistic (Hindi) Minority or Group of persons, declared by State Government as per touchstone prescribed under Minority Development Department, Government Resolution No.MES-2008/CR133/2008/D-1 dated 4.7.2008. as a result it is being declared that the said Institute is Linguistic (Hindi) Minority Educational Institute. c This certificate will be valid only for the State of Maharashtra. The Linguistic Minority Cadre which has been granted to the said society will be applicable to all educational benches conducted by the Institution. The Linguistic Minority Cadre which has been granted to the above mentioned Educational Institution will be legally valid from the academic year 2008-2009. it will be binding to comply with the touchstones and conditions constantly and specifically which have been prescribed as per Government Resolution No. MES-2008/CR-133/2008/D- 1 dated 4.7.2008. Sd/- (TF. Thekkekara) Competent Authority Principal Secretary Minority Development Department Mantralaya,, Mumbai-400032."
22. It was for the first time that the appellant by letter/ representation dated 15.7.2008 addressed to the Competent Authority, Minority Development Department, Mumbai, stated that the recognition certificate for linguistic minority has been issued in the name of "Dayanand Anglo Vedic (DAV) College Trust and Management Society, Solapur''. Therefore, a request was made in the said representation that since the appellant- Society is based at New Delhi, Certificate of Recognition may [2013) 4 S.C.R. A be issued in the name of "Dayanand Anglo Vedic (DAV) College Trust and Management Society, New Delhi" instead of Solapur. The said representation was rejected by the respondents mainly on the ground that only those Hindi speaking persons who are residing in Maharashtra, will be B treated as minority in Maharashtra. Admittedly, in the instant case, the appellant-TrusVSociety is registered at New Delhi and majority of the trustees reside at New Delhi and, therefore, these persons cannot be treated as minority in the State of Maharashtra and they cannot claim the protection of linguistic c minority in the State of Maharashtra. The aforesaid order was impugned in the writ petition which ultimately resulted in a direction to the respondents to pass a fresh order after giving opportunity of hearing to the appellant.
23. In compliance of the said direction, the respondents D passed the impugned order dated 26.10.2009. The Authority, while rejecting the application for the grant of minority status, recorded the following reasons: A) On scrutiny of papers, it was seen that although the covering application cited the name of the institution as "Dayanand Institutions Solapur", the trust deed was registered in the name of "Dayanand Anglo Vedic College Trust and Management Society" and the majority of the trustees resided at New Delhi. B) The certificate of registration submitted by the Dayanand Institutions Solapur in the name of 'Dayanand Anglo Vedic College Trust and Management Society' issued by the Charity Commissioner Mumbai and their application dated 6.7.07 on the letterhead styled 'Dayanand Institutions Solapur' led the Competent Authority to believe that the trustees were located in Maharashtra, when in fact they were not residents of Maharashtra. It was on the basis of these documents that the certificate of recognition as a minority institution had been issued on the 11th July, 2008. the application of the DAYANAND ANGLO VEDIC (DAV) COLLEGE TR. AND MANG 843 SOC. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [M.Y EQBAL, J.] so-called · Dayanand Institutions Solapur' by its letter dated 15.07.08 for a certificate of recognition of linguistic minority status to the 'Dayanand Anglo Vedic College Trust and Management Society, New Delhi' was rejected in the light of the above facts. C) It was noticed from the documents submitted by the organization, that although the trust had produced a deed of registration in the name and style 'Dayanand Anglo Vedic College Trust and Management Society', registered at Mumbai by the Charity Commissioner, Greater Mumbai, the organization was also registered under the name and style · Dayanand Anglo Vedic College Trust and Management Society' under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 at Lahore on 30.6.1948. it is seen from the copy of the Schedule 1 of the list of trustees, issued by the Charity Commissioner Mumbai on 7.3.08, that of the 34 trustees of the 'Dc:yanand Anglo Vedic College Trust and Management Society' recorded with the Charity Commissioner Greater Mumbai, 25 of the trustees reside in New Delhi, 4 in Haryana, 4 in Punjab and one at Ranchi. It is not denied by the applicant trust that in the case of both trusts viz. registered in 2003 under the Mumbai Public Trust Act, 1950 and uner the Societies Registration Act 1860 at Lahore in 30.6.1948, the majority of the trustees reside in New Delhi and that the majority of them reside outside Maharashtra. D) There is no separate trust or society registered in the name of the · Dayanand Institutions Solapur'. This entity appears to exist only on the letterhead by which an application seeking minority status was submitted to the Government on 6th July, 2007. E) The representative of the Dayanand Anglo Vedic College Trust And Management Society also stated that the Dayanand Institutions Solapur were working in Maharashtra for the poor students in Maharashtra in the best traditions of an academic institution wedded to the cause of excellence in education. They also stated that they could not recruit teachers with an excellent academic qualification in order to make the institution an excellent institution, as they were hampered by the requirement of the reservation of ST and other reservations. There were no qualified excellent teachers available with an ST background. Hence they desired to avoid this requirement of reservations in recruitment of teachers by having a minority status. F) In regard to the other contentions of the trust, it is clear that this application for a minority status is being made by the ·Dayan and Anglo Vedic College Trust and Management Society' of Arya Samaj members only to avoid the implementation of the reservations in favour of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and other backward communities, while recruiting teachers and staff in the school. This is against the constitutional provisions for the welfare and development of SCs and STs and cannot be accepted.
24. As noticed above, the aforesaid order of the E respondents dated 26.10.2009 was challenged before the Bombay High Court in W.P. No.1053 of 2010. Dismissing the said writ petition, the High Court noticed the fact that though the appellant claimed linguistic minority status, but all the trustees of the appellant-Society are residing in the area where F majority language is Hindi. The High Court took the view that the State Government had a right to correct the mistake if any certificate granting minority linguistic status is granted contrary to law. The High Court was further of the view that as admittedly the trustees of the appellant do not reside in the State of G Maharashtra, where Hindi speaking people are linguistic minority, the appellant-Trust/Society cannot claim to be a minority institution.
25. We have no doubt that the view taken by the High Court is justified. The rights conferred by Article 30 of the Constitution H to the minority are in two parts. The first part is the right to DAYANAND ANGLO VEDIC (DAV) COLLEGE TR. AND MANG 845 SOC. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [M.Y. EQBAL, J.] establish the institution of minority's choice and the second part relates to the right to administration of such institution. The word establishment herein means bringing into being. of an institution and ii must be by minority community. The administration means management of the affairs of the institution. Reference may be made to be the decision of this Court in the case of State of Kera/a Etc. vs. Mother Provincial Etc. AIR 1970 SC 2079.
26. Similarly, in the case of S.P. Mittal Etc. vs. Union of India and Otners, AIR 1983 SC 1, this Court held that in order to claim the benefit of Article 30, the community must firstly show and prove that it is a religious or linguistic minority; and secondly, that the institution has been established by such linguistic minority.
27. In the case of A.P. Christians Medical Educational Society vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. AIR 1986 SC 1490 (para 8), this Court elaborately discussed the rights guaranteed under Article 30 and held as under:- "It was seriously contended before us that any minority, even a single individual belonging to a minority, could found a minority institution and had the right so to do under the Constitution and neither the Government nor the University could deny the society's right to establish a minority institution, at the very threshold as it were, howsoever they may impose regulatory measures in the interests of uniformity, efficiency and excellence of education. The fallacy of the argument in so far as the instant case is concerned lies in thinking that neither the Government nor the University has the right to go behind the claim that the institution is a minority institution and to investigate and satisfy itself whether the claim is well founded or ill-founded. The Government, the University and ultimately the court have the undoubted right to pierce the 'minority veil' with due apologies to the Corporate Lawyers and discover whether there is lurking behind it no minority at all and in any case, no minority institution. The object of c Art. 30(1) is not to allow bogies to be raised by pretenders but to give the minorities ·a sense of security and a feeling of confidence' not merely by guaranteeing the right to profess, practise and propagate religion to religious minorities and the right to conserve their language, script and culture to linguistic minorities, but also to enable all minorities, religious or linguistic, to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. These institutions must be educational institutions of the minorities in truth and reanty and not mere masked phantoms. They may be institutions intended to give the children of the minorities the best general and professional education, to make them complete men and women of the country and to enable them to go out into the world fully prepared and equipped. They may be institutions where special provision is made to the advantage and for the advancement of the minority children. They may be institutions where the parents of the children of the minority community may expect that education in accordance with the basic tenets of their religion would be imparted by or under the guidance of teachers, learned and steeped in the faith. They may be institutions where the parents expect their children to grow in a pervasive atmosphere which is in harmony with their religion or conducive to the pursuit of it. What is important and what is imperative· is that there must exist some real positive index to enable the institution to be identified as an educational institution of the minorities. We have already said that in the present case apart from the half a dozen words ·as a Christian minorities institution' occurring in one of the objects recited in the memorandum of association, there is nothing whatever, in the memorandum or the articles of association or in the actions of the society to indicate that the institution was intended to be a minority educational institution. As already found by us these half a dozen words were introduced merely to found a claim on Art. 30(1 ). They were a smoke-screen." DAYANAND ANGLO VEDIC (DAV) COLLEGE TR. AND MANG 84 7 SOC. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [M.Y. EQBAL, J.]
28. In the case of S. Azeez Basha & Anr. Etc. vs. The Union of India Etc. AIR 1968 SC 662 (para 19), this Court considered the constitutional provisions and held as under: "Under Article 30(1 ), "all minorities whether based on religion or language shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice". We shall proceed on the assumption in the present petitions that Muslims are a minority based on religion. What then is the scope of Article 30(1) and what exactly is the right conferred therein on the religious minorities? It is to our mind quite clear that Article 30(1) postulates that the religious community will have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice meaning thereby that where a religious minority establishes an educational institution, it will have the right to administer that. An argument has been raised to the effect that even though the religious minority may not have established the educational institution, it will have the right to administer it, if by some process it had been administering the same before the Constitution came into force. We are not prepared to accept this argument. The Article in our opinion clearly shows that the minority will have the right to administer educational institutions of their choice provided they have established them, but not otherwise. The Article cannot be read to mean that even if the educational institution has been established by somebody else, any religious minority would have the right to administer it because, for some reason or other, it might have been administering it before the Constitution came into force. The words "establish and administer" in the Article must be read conjunctively and so read it gives the right to the minority to administer an educational institution provided it has been established by it. In this connection our attention was drawn to In re: The Kerala Education Bill, 1957, 1959 SCR 995: (AIR 1950 SC 956) where, it is argued, this Court had held that the minority can administer an c educational institution even though it might not have established it. In that case an argument was raised that under Article 30( 1) protection was given only to educational institutions established after the Constitution came into force. That argument was turned down by this Court for the obvious reason that if that interpretation was given to Article 30(1) it would be robbed of much of its content. But that case in our opinion did not lay down that the words "establish and administer" in Article 30(1) should be read disjunctively, so that though a minority might not have established an educational institution it had the right to administer it. It is true that at p. 1062 of SCR; (at p. 992 of AIR) the Court spoke of Article 30(1) giving two rights to a minority i.e. (i) to establish and (ii) to administer. But that was said only in the context of meeting the argument that educational institutions established by minorities before the Constitution came into force did not have the protection of Article 30(1 ). We are of opinion that nothing in that case justifies the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that the minorities would have the right to administer an educational institution even though the institution may not have been established by them. The two words in Article 30(1) must be read together and so read the Article gives the right to the minority to administer institutions established by it. If the educational institution has not been established by a minority it cannot claim the right to administer it under Article 30(1 ). We have therefore to consider whether the Aligarh University was established by the Muslim minority; and if it was so established, the minority would certainly have the right to administer it". (emphasis supplied)
29. In view of the opinion expressed by this Court in a catena of decisions, there cannot be any controversy that minorities in India have a right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice and the State H Government or the Universities cannot interfere with the day- DAYANAND ANGLO VEDIC (DAV) COLLEGE TR AND MANG 849 SOC. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [M.Y EQBAL, J.] to-day management of such institutions by the members of minority community. At the same time, this Court pointed out that though Article 30 itself does not lay down any limitation upon the right of a minority to administer its educational institution but this right is not absolute. This is subject to reasonable regulations for the benefit of the institution. The State Government and Universities can issue directions from time to time for the maintenance of the standard and excellence of such institution which is necessary in the national interest.
30. So far as the Government Resolution dated 4.7.2008 is concerned, it prescribes a procedure for granting minority status. The Resolution, inter alia, permits the persons of the State of Maharashtra whose mother tongue is other Indian language than Marathi will be eligible to submit an application for recognition of their linguistic minority educational institution. The only rider put is that the minimum 2/3rd trustees of the Management Committee of the Society/Institution should be from the concerned minority community.
31. After giving our anxious consideration in the matter and in the light of the law settled by this Court, we have no hesitation in holding that in order to claim minority/linguistic status for an institution in any State, the authorities must be satisfied firstly that the institution has been established by the persons who are minority in such State; and, secondly, the right of administration of the said minority linguistic institution is also vested in those persons who are minority in such State. The right conferred by Article 30 of the Constitution cannot be interpreted as if irrespective of the persons who established the institution in the State for the benefit of persons who are minority, any person, be it non-minority in other place, can administer and run such institution. In our considered opinion, therefore, the order passed by the respondent-Authority and the impugned order passed by the Division Bench need no interference by this Court. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. K.K.T. Appeal dismissed.