SEKHARA PILLAI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The plaintiff in O.S. 463 of 1978 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Kuzhithurai, has filed this second appeal against the Judgment in A.S. 178 of 1979 on the file of Additional Subordinate Judge, Kuzhithurai, in which the learned Subordinate Judge has confirmed the judgment in O.S. No. 463 of 1978.

(2.) SHORT facts leading to this appeal are: The plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration that the plaintiff's high school is a minority institution entitled to protection under Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution of India and consequential injunction restraining the defendants from enforcing certain Sections and Rules in Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 and Rules framed thereunder on the following grounds:

(3.) THE plaintiff figured as P.W. 1, He has stated that his father started the school in 1941 as a Middle School and later it was upgraded as High School in 1947-1948 and the school is conducted in promoting Malayalam language. He has further stated that he belongs to Nair community and Malayalam is his mother-tongue and Nair community is a minority community. He has further stated that Malayalam was the only medium of instruction in his school before merger in 1956 of this part of the country with Tamil Nadu and after merger, Tamil classes were opened and this school is a minority institution based on language. Though in cross-examination, he has stated that he do not know for what purpose the school was started, lie has stated that the aim of starting the school is to benefit the Malayalis. THE lower appellate court had held that at the time when the school was started, it was in the Trivancore-Cochin State and only later it was merged with Tamil Nadu and has become part and parcel of Kanyakumari District where Malayalam is a language of linguistic minority and that enable a person to get the protection of Article 30 of the Constitution, the institution must have been established and administered by the minorities and in the instant case, it was not established by a minority based on language in as much as at the time of starting of the school, this school was situated in erstwhile Trivancore-Cochin State where Malayalam is the official language. THE lower appellate court had relied upon the ruling of the apex court in Azeez Basha v. Union of India AIR 1968 SC 662. In that case, the contention of the petitioner was that Aligarh University is a minority institution, THE said University was established by Central Legislation by Aligarh Muslim University Act, 1920. So it was held that it was not established by a religious minority but was later administered by a religious minority and that to claim the benefit of Article 30 of the Constitution it must have been established and administered by the religious minority and the words ?established and administered? must be read conjointly. Mr. G.S. Thambi, would submit that in a case having identical facts, this High Court has decided that such a school which was established in a erstwhile Trivancore-Cochin State which later became part of Kanyakumari District is a school entitled to protection of 30 of the Constitution of India. In N. Parameswara Kurup v. State AIR 1970 SC 2079, the school concerned in those cases were originally situated in the erstwhile Travancore-Cochin State. But later, those portions of Travancore-Cochin State had merged with the State of Tamil Nadu by Central Act, 37 of 1956. THE plaintiff who had established those schools would contend that after merger with Tamil Nadu, the schools which were intended for the benefit of students of Nair community and for the benefit of Malayalis in the State of Tamil Nadu and so they are entitled to protection guaranteed under Article 30(1) of the Constitution. Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India reads as follows: