VALLIAMMAL SOCIETY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant-society in W.A. 1726/98 is running various educational institutions. THE appellant filed a suit O.S. 5334/93 before the City Civil Court, Chennai for declaration that it is a Minority Institution and entitled to constitutional protection as such Minority Institution. After contest, the said suit was decreed on 18.7.94. THEreafter the appellant filed an application on 5.7.95 before the Government of Tamil Nadu for an order declaring that all the institutions established and managed by it are entitled to the benefits of minority status. While the application was pending, the Government issued G.O.Ms. No. 270 Higher Education (Jl) Department, dated 17.6.98 prescribing the guidelines to dispose of the pending applications claiming minority status and also the applications which will be received in future from the educational institutions. Challenging the said G.O., the appellant filed writ petition W.P. 10232/98.

(2.) THE appellant in Writ Appeal No. 1727/98 is one Rajalakshmi Educational Trust who filed application before the Government for declaration of minority status on linguistic basis. THE Government has rejected the request of the appellant Trust by letter dated 8.7.98. Challenging the said order, the appellant filed W.P. 10074/98.

(3.) SO far as the contention of the learned senior counsel for the appellant in W.A. 1727/98 is concerned, the learned Senior Counsel ought to have advanced such an argument before the learned Single Judge and sought for an opportunity. Without doing so, the learned counsel for the appellant had produced the Trust Deed as well as the other relevant documents at the time of hearing before the learned Judge who had taken pains to peruse the same and considered the terms of the Trust Deed elaborately while holding that it is not a minority institution. Having produced all the relevant materials before the learned Single Judge and having invited a decision on merits, we are of the opinion that it is neither proper nor required for us to remit the matter to the State Government just to afford further opportunity to the appellant by setting aside the order, even assuming that the order of the Government is vitiated by non-observance of the principle of audi alteram partem.