P.K.BALASUBRAMANYAN, J. - (1.) THESE writ petitions were once finally disposed of by this Court by judgment 'dated 4.10.1991. The said judgment was challenged in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court without going specifically into the merits of the case, remanded the writ petitions to this Court directing it to re -examine matters in the light of the decision rendered by a Constitution Bench of that Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation V/s. State of Karnataka, 2002 (8) SCC 481. The parties were given liberty to file fresh pleadings, if any. It was directed that the State should bring all statutory enactments, orders, schemes and regulations relating to education, in conformity with the said decision. The petitioners in CWJC No. 1211 of 1991, after the remit by the Supreme Court, have filed a supplementary affidavit and further pleadings have been made also by the other parties, including the intervener.
(2.) WHAT was challenged in CWJC No. 1211 of 1991 before this Court was an order by the Government holding that the college, re -named as Paramveer Albert Ekka Memorial College, was not a minority institution entitled to the protection of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. That order itself was based on a specific direction issued by this Court in an earlier writ petition, CWJC No. 758 of 1987(R). Meanwhile, the order of the Government was sought to be stayed by the Governor and that led to the teachers filing CWJC No. 1133 of 1991 challenging that action. The question that had to be decided by the Government could be best set out by quoting the relevant portion of the judgment in CWJC No. 758 of 1987(R). This Court directed thus : "In view of the disputed facts and in view of the fact that the claim of the petitioners have not been decided by any competent authority on the basis of documents brought on record by the parties, we are of the opinion that the question whether the college was established by a Christian minority and was administered by the Catholic Sabha at all material times should be left open to be decided by the State Government. The primary question to be decided is whether the college was established by a religious minority. If it is decided in the affirmative, it will follow that they have the right to administer it. The Government will grant opportunities to the parties to produce all relevant documents in connection with this question and also give opportunity to the parties of being heard, if request is made. The State Government shall thereafter record its finding with reference to the documents brought before it by the parties and dispose of the matter by recording a reasoned order." Obviously the question that had to be decided by the Government was whether the institution was established by a minority community? The Government has recorded a finding that the institution was not established by a minority community. It was this finding of fact that was sought to be challenged by the petitioners in CWJC No. 1211 of 1991(R). In that writ petition, the Division Bench took the view that on the materials discussed by the Government and relied upon in the order, no ground was made out for interference in exercise of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In other words, the Division Bench held that the finding of fact was adequately supported by relevant materials and no ground for interference in certiorari was made out. As a consequence of this finding, the order of the Governor staying the operation of the order of the Government was quashed. Thus, CWJC No. 1211 of 1991 was dismissed and CWJC No. 1133 of 1991 was allowed. It was the decision of this Court that was taken up in appeal to the Supreme Court.
(3.) THE question whether the High Court was justified in not interfering with the finding that the institution was not one established by a minority community in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was not considered by the Supreme Court. We find that once this finding of fact is found sustainable, as the law now stands, the claim of the petitioners in CWJC No. 1211 of 1991 has only to be rejected. In that event, the ratio of the decision in T.M.A. Pai Foundation, case (supra), may not have any direct bearing on the question. With respect it appears to us that the fact involved here, if at all, can only marginally be affected by the decision in the T.M.A. Pai Foundation, case so long as the interpretation of Article 30 of the Constitution to the effect that for an institution to qualify for its protection, it must be one established and administered by a minority community, on the plain language of the article, stands. In the circumstances, the only aspect to be considered is whether the finding of fact rendered by the Government in compliance with the direction of this Court to enter such a finding, calls for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. With respect, what we intend to point out is that the question whether that finding of fact calls for interference or not, may not be controlled by the ratio of the decision in T.M.A. Pai Foundation case and the question has to be dealt with as a question of fact and from the angle whether that finding of fact rendered, calls for interference in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.;