STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. S R M SUBBURAMIER SECRETARY AND CORRESPONDENT OF SOURASHTRA MIDDLE SCHOOL NILAKOTTAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Prayer: Appeal and Memo of Cross Objections against the Decree of the Court of the I Addl. Subordinate Judge, Madurai, dated 20.2.1981. and passed in Appeal suit No. 207/1980 preferred against the decree of the Court of the District Munsif, Madurai Taluk, at Madurai dated 7.7.80 and passed in Original Suit No. 398 of 1979.) The defendants are the appellants. The suit filed by the respondent, who is the Secretary and Correspondent of Sourashtra Middle School, Nilakottai is for a declaration that the respondent's school is a minority school as per the provisions of Act 29 of 1974, viz., the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 and Rules framed thereunder and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendant from enforcing certain specific provisions of the abovesaid Act and Rules, on the respondent's school. The Trial Court granted only the abovesaid declaration prayed for, but dismissed the suit with reference to the abovesaid injunction relief prayed for. As against the said decision of the Trial Court, there were two appeals, viz., A.S. Nos. 207 and 208/1980 before the lower appellate court one by the defendants State of Tamil Nadu and its authorities and the other by the plaintiff. The 1st appeal by the defendants is against the declaration granted and the other appeal by the plaintiff is against the refusal of the injunction relief. The lower appellate court, which heard the said two appeals together, dismissed both the appeals. As against the dismissal of A.S. No. 207/1980 filed by the defendants, this Second Appeal has been preferred and in this Second Appeal, the Cross Objection has been filed by the plaintiff seeking the abovesaid injunction relief.

(2.) QUITE similar to the question involved in this second appeal, there were also two other second appeals, viz., S.A. Nos. 15 and 25 of 1981. There also, the question was whether the institutions therein were minority institutions, entitled to the benefits of the protection under Art. 30(1) of the Constitution of India and for consequential injunction. There also, as in the present case, the question was, whether the institution in question was founded by a linguistic minority, viz., the Sourashtra Community. Those Second appeals were disposed of by judgment dated 14.3.1988. The learned Additional Government Pleader fairly represents that the said decision would govern the present case also and that accordingly this second appeal also may be dismissed. Therefore, pursuant to the said representation and after going through the said judgment dated 14.3.1988, this second appeal is dismissed.