Gujarat High Court
Shantiniketan Education Trust vs State Of Gujarat & on 15 January, 2013
Equivalent citations: AIR 2013 GUJARAT 210
Author: M.R.Shah
Bench: M.R. Shah
SHANTINIKETAN EDUCATION TRUSTV/SSTATE OF GUJARAT C/LPA/1731/2004 CAV JUDGEMNT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.
1731 of 2004 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2850 of 2004 With LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.
1819 of 2004 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15312 of 2003 With MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO.
779 of 2006 In CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7793 of 2004 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH -sd/-
and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.H.VORA - sd/-
============================================
1.
Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
YES
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
YES
3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
NO
4. Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?
NO
5. Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
NO ============================================= SHANTINIKETAN EDUCATION TRUST & 4....Appellant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT &
3....Respondent(s) ============================================= Appearance:
LPA NO.1819 OF 2004 MR.
D.D.VYAS, Ld. Advocate for the appellants LPA NO.1731 OF 2004 MR. SHALIN MEHTA Ld. Sr. with Hemang Sha ld. Advocate for the appellants Mr. P.K. Jani, Government Pleaderwith Nisha Thakore AGP for Respondent State MR AD OZA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2 RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1 , 3 - 4 ============================================= CORAM:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.H.VORA Date : 15/01/2013 CAV JUDGEMNT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) 1.0. As common question of law and facts arise in both these Letters Patent Appeals, there are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.
2.0. Both these Letters Patent Appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent have been preferred by the respective appellants herein-original petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 2850 of 2004 and Special Civil Application No.15312 of 2003 challenging the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 29.7.2004 passed in aforesaid Special Civil Applications, by which the learned Single Judge has partly allowed the Special Civil Applications and declared that a person or group of persons belonging genuinely to the group of Hindi linguistic can claim status as linguistic minority in Gujarat State, however it will be for the concerned authority of the State Government to examine the facts of each institution keeping in view the observations made in the said judgment and to ascertain as to whether such persons or group of persons running the petitioner institutions are genuinely belonging to "Hindi" linguistic group and it will also be for the Officer concerned to examine the constitution and functioning of each petitioner institution and to find out as to whether the appellant- original petitioner institutions are formed with an object to promote and preserve "Hindi" language, script and culture or not and if as outcome of the inquiry it is found that the concerned petitioner institutions either themselves or their Trustees belong to genuinely "Hindi" linguistic group and the institution is formed with an object to promote and preserve "Hindi" as its language, culture and script, consequently the status would be conferred upon such petitioners for such purpose as minority institutions.
3.0. The facts leading to the present Letters Patent Appeals in nutshell are as under:
3.1. That both the appellants-original petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner institutions ) are running educational institutions. That according to the petitioners institutions after establishment of the institutions, the concerned District Primary Education Officer initially conferred them status of minority institutions. According to the petitioners institutions, they were communicated by the authorities that as per the Government Resolution dated 14-11-1979, only three languages are treated as linguistic minority namely; "Urdu" "Sindhi" and "Marathi"
and, therefore, "Hindi" is not treated as linguistic minority in Gujarat State and, therefore, the petitioners cannot claim the status of linguistic minority. It was the case on behalf of the respondent State authority that "Hindi" is an official language and even in Gujarat State the same is treated as official language and, therefore, in any event, "Hindi" cannot be treated as linguistic minority in Gujarat State. That being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid communication not to treat the Hindi as linguistic minority in the Gujarat State, respective petitioners institutions preferred aforesaid Special Civil Applications for appropriate writ, directions and order to quash and set aside the communication dated 10.9.2003 issued by the Director of Primary Education, State of Gujarat and thereby to quash and set aside the decision of the respondent no.1-State of Gujarat of cancelling / rejecting the minority status conferred upon the petitioners who are in Hindi speaking people. The respective petitioners institutions also prayed for appropriate writ, directions and order commanding the respondent nos. 1 to 3 to confer the status of linguistic minorities upon them who are Hindi speaking peoples imparting secondary and higher secondary education through schools/ educational institutions established by them.
3.2. It was the case on behalf of the respective petitioners institutions that the aforesaid communication of the respondent authority that Hindi is not to be treated as linguistic minority results into taking away the protection guaranteed under Article 29 read with Article 30 of the Constitution of India. It was also the case on behalf of the petitioners institutions that for claiming status as linguistic minority, the population of such group should be less than 50% of the total population of the State and the State is to be considered as unit. Therefore, it was the case on behalf of the concerned respective petitioners institutions that as as per census of 1991, the population of Hindi speaking people is less than 50% in the State of Gujarat and therefore, group of Hindi speaking persons in the State of Gujarat can be said as in minority in Gujarat State and therefore, in the State of Gujarat Hindi is required to be declared as linguistic minority.
3.3. On the other hand it was the case on behalf of the respondent authorities that relying upon the Government Resolution dated 14.11.1979 only three languages namely "Urdu","Sindhi" and "Marathi" are linguistic minorities and therefore, Hindi cannot be said to be a linguistic minority. It was also the case on behalf of the respective respondent authorities that school run by the so called Hindi linguistic minority are bogus on paper and with a view to get the benefits of Government grant without there being any legitimate right for such purpose.
3.4. Considering Articles 29 & 30 of the Constitution of India and considering the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in case of "TMA Pai Foundation and Others v. State of Karnataka", reported in 2002(8) SCC, 481 (para 183), learned Single Judge by impugned judgment and order has held that for claiming minority either religious or linguistic, the population of such group should be less than 50% of the total population of the State and such group can claim the protection as linguistic or religious minority. The learned Single Judge has also observed that if the State is considered as the Unit and if the case is to be examined only on the question of population, in that case, considering the total population of the Gujarat State and the population of Hindi speaking persons, Hindi speaking persons are having the population of less than 50% and therefore, it is held by the learned Single Judge that the group of Hindi persons speaking can be said to be in minority in the Gujarat State and consequently while partly allowing the aforesaid Special Civil Applications learned Single Judge has declared that a person or group of persons belonging genuinely to the group of Hindi linguistic can claim status as linguistic minority in Gujarat State. However, considering its earlier decision in the case of Atladara Kelavani Mandal & ors vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 2004 (1) GLR 244, the learned Single Judge has further observed that however it will be open for the concerned authority of the State Government to examine the facts of each institution keeping in view the observations made in para 16 of the said judgment and to ascertain as to whether such persons or group of persons running the petitioner institutions are genuinely belonging to "Hindi" linguistic group and it will also be open for the Officer concerned to examine the constitution and functioning of each petitioner institution and to find out as to whether the petitioner institutions are formed with an object to promote and preserve "Hindi" language, script and culture or not and if as outcome of the inquiry it is found that the concerned petitioner institutions either themselves or their Trustees belong to genuinely "Hindi" linguistic group and the institution is formed with an object to promote and preserve "Hindi" as its language, culture and script, consequently the status would be conferred upon such petitioners for such purpose as minority institutions.
3.5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge passed in aforesaid Special Civil Application No. 2850 of 2004 and Special Civil Application No.15312 of 2003 in so far as observing that while considering the claim of respective petitioners institutions as linguistic minority institution, it will be open for the concerned authority of the State Government to examine and find out as to whether the petitioners institutions are formed with an object to promote and preserve "Hindi" language, script and culture or not and if as the outcome of the inquiry it is found that the concerned petitioner institutions either themselves or their Trustees belong to genuinely "Hindi" linguistic group and the institution is formed with an object to promote and preserve "Hindi" as its language, culture and script, then and then only status would be conferred upon such institution as linguistic minority institution, respective appellants herein -original petitioners institutions have preferred present Letters Patent Appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.
4.0. Shri Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Advocate, has appeared on behalf of appellants
-original petitioners institutions in Letters Patent Appeal No.1731 of 2004 and Shri Dhaval Vyas, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the appellants -original petitioners in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1819 of 2004. Shri P.K. Jani, learned Government Pleader has appeared on behalf of the respondent State Authorities and Shri A.D. Oza, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the Gujarat Secondary Education Board.
5.0. Learned advocates for the respective appellants have vehemently submitted that the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in so far as observing that while conferring the status as linguistic minority in the State of Gujarat to the group of Hindi speaking persons, it will be open for the concerned authority of the State Government to ascertain and / or find out as to whether they are formed with an object to promote and preserve Hindi as its language, culture and script is absolutely illegal and contrary to Article 30 of the Constitution of India.
5.1. It is further submitted by learned advocates for the respective appellants that even a single person belonging to the Hindi speaking can maintain and run the institution and even claim the status as a linguistic minority. It is submitted for that it need not be that such institution is being run by the group of Hindi speaking persons and / or their trustees should be Hindi speaking.
5.2. It is further submitted by learned advocates for the respective appellants that a person or group of persons belonging genuinely to the group of Hindi linguistic can maintain and run any institution in any language and still can claim status as a linguistic minority. It is submitted that under Article 30 of the Constitution of India all minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. It is further submitted that Article 30 of the Constitution of India does not provide that such minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions in the concerned language or religion only. It is therefore, submitted that as such a person or group of persons belonging genuinely to the group of Hindi linguistic can establish and administer educational institutions of their choice in any language. In support of their above submissions, learned advocates for the respective appellants have heavily relied upon the following decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court.
(I). Kerala Education Bill, 1957, Re, AIR 1958 SC 956.
(ii) D.A.V. College, Bhatinda etc. vs. The State of Punjab and Others reported in (1971) 2 SCC 261.
(iii) "TMA Pai Foundation and Others v. State of Karnataka reported in (2002) 8 SCC 481.
(iv). A.P. Christian Medical Educational Society vs. Government of A.P. reported in (1986) 2 SCC 667.
(v). Ahmedabad St. Xavier s College Society vs. State of Gujarat reported in (1974) 1 SCC 717.
(vi). P.A. Inamdar vs. State of Maharshtra reported in (2005) 6 SCC 537.
(vii).
Sindhi Education Society and Anr vs. Chief Secretary Government of NCT of Delhi and others reported in (2010) 8 SCC 49.
5.3. Relying upon the above decisions and by making above submissions, it is requested to allow the present Letters Patent Appeals.
6.0. Both these Letters Patent Appeals are opposed by Shri P.K. Jani, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondent State Authority as well as Shri A.D. Oza, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent Gujarat Secondary Education Board. It is submitted that the direction issued by the learned Single Judge in the impugned common judgment and order, more particularly, in para 18 that while claiming status as linguistic minority by a person or group of persons belonging genuinely to the group of Hindi language it has to be satisfied whether the petitioners institutions are formed with an object to promote and preserve Hindi language, script and culture or not is neither erroneous nor contrary to Article 29 or Article 30 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that when a person or group of persons belonging to the group of Hindi language, wants to establish institution and claims status as linguistic minority it must be with an object to promote and preserve Hindi language, script and culture and the concerned petitioners institutions either themselves or their trustees shall belong to genuinely Hindi linguistic group and the institution is to be formed with an object promote and preserve Hindi as its language, culture and script. Therefore, it is submitted that as such no error and / or illegality has been committed by the learned Single Judge in holding so and observing that it will be open for the concerned authority of the State Government to examine facts of each institution keeping in mind the aforesaid. In support of his above submissions, Shri Jani, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State authority has also relied upon some of the observations in the case of TMA Pai Foundation and others (supra) (para 141, 142 and 143) and also para 117 of the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Sindhi Education Society and Anr (supra).
6.1. It is further submitted by Shri Jani, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondent State that even a person or group of persons belonging genuinely to the group of Hindi linguistic, who claims status as linguistic minority has to establish a institution mainly and/ or predominantly for the benefit of Hindi speaking persons who are found to be in minority in particular State. It is submitted that therefore, even such a person or group of persons belonging to Hindi linguistic has no right to establish and / or administer the institution by claiming status as linguistic minority for the persons belonging to other than Hindi speaking persons. Relying upon the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of P. A. Inamdar (supra), it is submitted that as observed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the said decision so long as the institution retains its minority character by achieving and continuing to achieve the objectives of (i) conservation of the minority s religion and language and (ii) the giving of a thorough, good general education to children belonging to such minority, the institution would remain a minority institution. Therefore, it is submitted that even the institution administered and / or run by a person or group of genuinely Hindi speaking persons claiming status as linguistic minority, their object should be for upliftment of the children belonging to such minority (linguistic) and it would be for the benefit of children belonging to such minority (linguistic). It is submitted that therefore, the contention on behalf of the appellants -original petitioners that if the institution claiming status of linguistic minority is by single individual person belonging to genuinely Hindi speaking language and may not be for the benefit of children belonging to such minority only, cannot be accepted. By making above submissions and relying upon the above decisions, it is requested to dismiss the present Letters Patent Appeals.
7.0. Shri A.D. Oza, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Gujarat Secondary Education Board has opposed the present Letters Patent Appeals by submitting that as it has been found that many persons / institutions have misused the status conferred on them as linguistic minority institution only for the purpose of getting benefit as a minority institution, no illegality has been committed by the learned Single Judge in observing that before conferring any status to any institution as linguistic minority, it will be open for the State Authority to examine facts of each institution as to ascertain whether such person or group of persons running institution are genuinely belonging to the Hindi linguistic group and it will be open for the officer concern to examine Constitution and functioning of each petitioner institution and to find out as to whether the petitioners institutions are formed with an object to promote and preserve the Hindi language, script and culture or not and if the aforesaid is satisfied then and then only institution can claim status as linguistic minority. Therefore, it is requested to dismiss present Letters Patent Appeals.
8.0. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length. The questions which are required to be considered by this Court in present Letters Patent are;
(1).
Whether a person or group of persons belonging genuinely to the group of Hindi linguistic while claiming status as linguistic minority in the Gujarat State is required to satisfy whether they are formed with an object to promote and preserve Hindi language, script and culture or not ?
(2). Whether while claiming such status as linguistic minority in the Gujarat State such institutions are required to satisfy whether such institution is established for the benefit of such minority group ?
(3). Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Single Judge is justified in observing that in a case where a person or group of persons belonging genuinely to the group of Hindi linguistic, it will be open for the concerned authority of the State Government to examine Constitution and functioning of each petitioner institution and to find out as to whether the petitioners institutions are formed with an object to promote and preserve Hindi language, script and culture or not and if as the outcome of the inquiry, it is found that the concerned petitioner institutions either themselves or their trustees belonging genuinely to Hindi linguistic group and the institution is formed with an object to promote and preserve Hindi as its language, culture and script, the status would be conferred upon such petitioners for such purpose as minority institution ?
9.0. At the outset, it is required to be noted that both the petitioners institutions are claiming status as linguistic minority (Hindi linguistic) under Article 30 of the Constitution of India. By impugned judgment and order learned Single Judge has as such held that genuinely Hindi speaking persons are minority in the State of Gujarat and for that the learned Single Judge has heavily relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of TMA Pai Foundation (supra) and the said decision has as such attained the finality as the State has not challenged the same. However, while holding so learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment and order has observed that while considering the case of the petitioners institutions for claiming status as linguistic minority ( Hindi language), it will be open for the concerned authority of the State Government to examine the facts of each institution keeping in view the observations made in the said judgment and to ascertain as to whether such persons or group of persons running the petitioner institutions are genuinely belonging to "Hindi" linguistic group and it will also be open for the Officer concerned to examine the constitution and functioning of each petitioner institution and to find out as to whether the appellant- original petitioner institutions are formed with an object to promote and preserve "Hindi" language, script and culture or not and if on the outcome of the inquiry it is found that the concerned petitioner institutions either themselves or their Trustees belong to genuinely "Hindi" linguistic group and the institution is formed with an object to promote and preserve "Hindi" as its language, culture and script then and then only to confer the status as Linguistic Minority.
10. Therefore, the first question which is required to be considered is whether such a person or group of persons belonging genuinely to the group of Hindi linguistic while claiming status as linguistic minority has to establish institution in Hindi language ? whether the petitioners institutions have to be formed with an object to promote and preserve Hindi language, script and culture only ? As such the aforesaid controversy is now not res-integra. In the case of D.A.V College, Bhatinda (supra) the Hon ble Supreme Court has specifically observed and held that right of the minority to establish and administer the educational institutions of their choice would include the right to have a choice of medium of instruction which would be the result of reading Article 30(1) with 29(1).
11. In the case of Ahmedabad St. Xavier s College Society (supra) the Hon ble Supreme Court has observed that right guaranteed to religious or linguistic minority under Article 30(1) includes right to establish any educational institutions of its choice. In the said decision, the Hon ble Supreme Court has observed as under:
It is difficult to subscribe to the view that educational institutions mentioned in Article 30(1) are only those which are intended to conserve language, script or culture of the minority. Clause (1) of Article 30 also contains the words of their choice . These words which qualify educational institutions show the vast discretion and option which the minorities have in selecting the type of institutions which they want to establish. In case an educational institution is established by a minority to conserve its distinct language, script or culture, the right to establish and administer such institution would fall both under Article 29(1) as well as under
Article 30(1). The minorities can, however, choose to establish an educational institution which is purely of a general secular character and is not designed to conserve their distinct language, script or culture. The right to establish and administer such an institution is guaranteed by Article 30(1) and the fact that such an institution does not conserve the distinct language, script or culture of a minority would not take it out of the ambit of Article 30(1).
12. In the case of P.A, Inamdar (supra), the Hon ble Supreme Court has observed and held that Article 30(1) of the Constitution does not require that minorities based on religion should establish educational institutions for teaching religion only or that a linguistic minority should establish educational institution for teaching its language only. It is further observed in the said decision that the objective underlying Article 30(1) is to see the desire of minorities being fulfilled that their children should be brought up properly and efficiently and acquire eligibility for higher university education and go out into the world fully equipped with such intellectual attainments as will make them fit for entering the public services, educational institutions imparting higher instructions including general secular education. It is further observed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the said decision that so long as the institution retains its minority character by achieving and continuing to achieve the objective of (i) conservation of the minority s religion and language and (ii) the giving of a thorough, good general education to children belonging to such minority, the institution would remain a minority institution.
13. In the case of Kerala Education Bill, 1957, Re (supra) in the majority decision, it is observed and held as under:
Article 30(1) gives certain rights not only to religious minorities but also to linguistic minorities. In the next place, the right conferred on such minorities is to establish educational institutions of their choice. It does not say that minorities based on religion should establish educational institutions for teaching religion only, or that linguistic minorities should have the right to establish educational institutions for teaching their language only. What the article says and means is that the religious and the linguistic minorities should have the right to establish educational institutions of their choice. There is no limitation placed on the subjects to be taught in such educational institutions. As such minorities will ordinarily desire that their children should be brought up properly and efficiently and be eligible for higher university education and go out in the world fully equipped with such intellectual attainments as will make them fit for entering the public services, educational institutions of their choice will necessarily include institutions imparting general secular education also. In other words, the article leaves it to their choice to establish such educational institutions as will serve both purpose, namely, the purpose of conserving their religion, language or culture, and also the purpose of giving a thorough, good general education to their children. The next thing to note is that the article, in terms, gives all minorities, whether based on religion or language, two rights, namely the right to establish and the right to administer educational institutions of their choice.
14. Considering the aforesaid decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court and Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India, the view is taken by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment and order that while considering the claim by person or group of persons belonging genuinely to the group of Hindi linguistic as linguistic minority in the Gujarat State, it will be open for the officer concerned to examine the Constitution and functioning of each petitioner institutions and to find out as to whether the petitioner institutions are formed with an object to promote and preserve Hindi language, script and culture or not and if as the outcome of the inquiry it is found that the concerned petitioner institutions is formed with an object to promote and preserve Hindi as its language, culture and script, consequently status would be conferred upon such petitioners for such performance as minority institutions cannot be sustained. Such requirement would be violative of rights guaranteed to such lingustic minority persons guaranteed under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India.
15. Now, so far as other observations made by learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment and order that while considering claim of the petitioners institutions as linguistic minority (Hindi) in Gujarat State, it will be open for the concerned authority of the State Government to examine facts of each institution and to ascertain as to whether such person or group of persons running the petitioners institutions are genuinely belonging to the Hindi linguistic group does not require any interference. As observed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of A.P. Christian Medical Educational Society (supra) the institution must be genuinely educational institution of the minorities. The Hon ble Supreme Court has further observed and held as under:
The object of Article 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 guarantteeing the right to profess, practice 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. 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. The Government, the University and ultimately the Court have the undoubted right to pierce the minority veil and 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 not.
16. As observed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of P. A. Inamdar (supra) the objective underlying Article 30(1) is to see the desire of minorities being fulfilled that their children should be brought up properly and efficiently and acquire eligibility for higher university education and go out into the world fully equipped with such intellectual attainments as will make them fit for entering the public services, educational institutions imparting higher instructions including general secular education. Therefore, objective underlying Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India is to enable such minority institutions religion or linguistic to give thorough, good, general education to children belonging to such minority. Therefore, a person or group of persons belonging genuinely to the group of Hindi linguistic claiming status as linguistic minority in the Gujarat State has to satisfy that their object is to establish such institution for the benefit of their own linguistic minority i.e. genuinely Hindi speaking persons so as to see that such Hindi speaking persons who are found to be in minority in the Gujarat State may compete with others. Therefore, the contention on behalf of the petitioners institutions that while claiming status as linguistic minority (Hindi) in the Gujarat State by establishing a institution, it need not be restricted predominantly for the benefit of genuinely Hindi speaking persons cannot be accepted. There objects should be to establish the institution predominantly for the benefit of persons belonging to such linguistic minority (Hindi speaking persons). To that extent, the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be modified.
17. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, both the Letters Patent Appeals are partly allowed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge declaring that a person or group of persons belonging genuinely to the group of Hindi linguistic can claim status as linguistic minority in Gujarat State as genuinely Hindi speaking persons are minority in the State of Gujarat is hereby confirmed. However, rest of the observations and directions made in para 18 of the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge is modified as under:
(a). It is observed and held that it will be open for the concerned authority of the State Government to examine facts of each institution keeping in view the observations made in the said judgment and to ascertain as to whether such persons or group of persons running the petitioner institutions are genuinely belonging to "Hindi" linguistic group and it will be open for the Officer concerned to examine the constitution and functioning of each petitioner institution and to find out as to whether the petitioners institutions are formed to achieve the object of giving a thorough, good general education to children belonging to such linguistic minority i.e. predominantly for the benefit of genuinely Hindi speaking persons in the State of Gujarat and if the aforesaid conditions are satisfied then and then only they can be conferred the status as linguistic minority in the Gujarat State. It is observed that while claiming the status as linguistic minority (Hindi) in the State of Gujarat, they need not establish the institution with an object to promote and preserve Hindi language, script and culture only and they can establish a institution for imparting education in any language which need not be in Hindi language only.
18. With this, present Letters Patent Appeals are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent and concerned respondent authorities are directed to consider the case of the respective petitioners institutions while considering the claim of the respective petitioners institutions as linguistic minority (Hindi) in the Gujarat State in light of the aforesaid observations and if the aforesaid conditions/ criteria are satisfied, in that case, they shall be conferred with the status as a linguistic minority and to give all benefits which might be available to such linguistic minority as available under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
sd/-
(M.R.SHAH, J.) sd/-
(S.H.VORA, J.) Kaushik Page 21 of 21