Mr. K. Harilal, J. - The petitioner is an Educational Agency, which established a Girls High School, with Standards VIII, IX and X at Narakkal, Cochin. According to the petitioner, originally the school was sanctioned prior to the commencement of the Kerala Educational Act and Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Act and Rules). The school after its establishment, by Mother Superior was run by the Nuns giving best education to the students. So the said school is entitled to get protection under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India and of Minority Educational Institutions under the Act and Rules. Hence, the petitioner filed an application, seeking a direction to respondents 1 and 2, to recognise, approve and declare the school, as minority institution and further declare that the school is having protection of Minority Educational Institutions under the Act and Rules, as envisaged under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has produced all the relevant documents from the very beginning of the school, which would show that the school was established by Nuns, the minorities and is being administered by successors of that minority After hearing the petitioner, Government passed Ext. P10 order, denying the claim for the minority status on a finding that the school is an aided school, established for educational upliftment of the entire people in that locality and the same was not established and administered by and on behalf of a particular Community only. The legality of the reasons, by which the Government denied the recognition of the minority status is under challenge in this Writ Petition.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The sum and substance of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though, the petitioner has produced all the documents, which would show that the school was established by Nuns, even before the commencement of the Kerala Education Act and Rules and since the establishment of the school is being administered by minorities only, the Government has not considered those documents and dismissed the petition and rejected the claim on a finding that the petitioner could not prove that the school was established for the educational upliftment of the said minority community only and the said school is an aided school established to cater the educational needs of the entire people in that locality.

4. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader advanced arguments to justify the reasons, whereby the Government rejected the claim for minority status. According to him, the petitioner failed to prove that the school was established by minority group and the school is being administered by persons having minority status.

5. The short question that arises for consideration is, what are the constitutional requirements to grant minority status provided under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India and minority schools defined under Section 2(5) of the Act. The main thrust of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the 1st respondent exceeded his jurisdiction and power by insisting the requirement, which is not contemplated under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India or Section 2(5) of the Kerala Education Act and went wrong by finding that the school was not established for the upliftment of minority community alone. The Apex Court has considered this question in the decision in Dayanand Anglo Vedic (DAV) College Trust and management Society v. State of Maharashtra and 2013 KHC 423 : (2013) 4 SCC 14 [LQ/SC/2013/336] : 2013 (2) KHC SN 25 : 2013 (2) KLT SN 32 : 2013 (4) SCALE 624 [LQ/SC/2013/336] : AIR 2013 SC 1420 [LQ/SC/2013/336] : 2013 (126) AIC 142. and the relevant paragraph reads as follows:

"34. After giving our anxious consideration to the matter and in the light of the law settled by this Court, we have no hesitation in holding that in order to claim minority/linguistic status for an institution in any State, the authorities must be satisfied firstly that the institution has been established by the persons who are minority in such State, and, secondly, the right of administration of the said minority linguistic institution is also vested in those persons who are minority in such State. The right conferred by Article 30 of the Constitution cannot be interpreted as if irrespective of the person who established the institution in the State for the benefit of persons who are minority, any person, be it non-minority in other place, can administer and run such institution."

The proposition that can be culled out from the above decision is that for conferring minority status the authorities must be satisfied, firstly, that the institution has been established by the persons, who are minority in such State and secondly, the right of administration of said minority institution is vested in those persons, who are minority in such State. There is no statutory insistence that the school must be established for the upliftment of minority community alone.

6. Similarly, according to Section 2(5) of the Kerala Education Act, Minority Schools means schools of their choice established and administered or administered, by such minorities as have the right to do so under Clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution of India. Here also establishment and administration or administration, by minorities having right to do so under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India alone is insisted to grant the status of minority schools and the school need not be established for the upliftment of minority community alone.

7. Going by the impugned order, it is seen that the 1st respondent has not adverted to these essential requirements, which would constitute the claim, but went wrong beyond the statutory requirement and considered the question, which was not required to be considered under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 2(5) of the Kerala Education Act. In short, the 1st respondent had exceeded his jurisdiction and power, while passing Ext. P10 order.

8. In the above view of the matter, the impugned order, Ext. P10 will stand quashed and the matter is remitted to the 1st respondent, to consider afresh and pass orders accordingly, in view of the observations made and decision referred above, after affording an opportunity of being heard, to the petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment, This Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.