Judgment B.P.Singh, J. 1. The petitioner, Ranchi University Teachers Association, has been described in the cause title of the writ application as an Organization affiliated under law having its registered office at Lubi Road, Dhanbad. In paragraph 4 of the writ application, it has been stated that the petitioner is a representative body of all the teachers of the Colleges through out the State including the teachers of respondent No. 2 who are its members, and therefore the petitioner and its members are vitally affected by the matters under issue. In its reply to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 3 and 4, the petitioner has stated that it is an affiliate of the All India Federation of the Universities and Teachers Association registered under the Societies Registration Act and is duly recognised Union of the Ranchi University representing the largest body of the teachers belonging to the Ranchi University. From the above it will appear that the petitioner-Association is not a society or association registered under law but it claims to be affiliated to a registered association. It has prayed for the quashing of Annexure-2, a letter issued from the Governors Secretariat, Bihar, on 7-4-1970 addressed to the Vice Chancellor of the Ranchi University communicating to him the decision of the Chancellor passed on the representation of the Yogoda Satsanga Society of India whereby the Chancellor was pleased to direct that Yogoda Mahavidyalaya Ranchi should be treated as a minority college based on religion within the meaning of Section 43-B of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1960 (in short, to be stated as the Act). The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of Annexure-6 which is a letter issued from the Governors Secretariat addressed to the Registrar of the Ranchi University communicating to him the decision of the Chancellor to the effect that after careful consideration, the Chancellor was pleased to order that there was no case to revise the earlier decision regarding the religious! minority status of the Yogoda Satsanga Mahavidyalaya, Ranchi. In substance, by Annexure-2, the Chancellor accorded to the Yogoda Satsanga Mahavidyalaya the status of a minority Institution u/s 48-B of the Act and by Annexure-6 refused to reconsider that decision. It is worth noticing that Annexure-2 is dated the 7th April, 1970 and Annexure-6 is dated the 27th of January, 1982, that is, almost 12 years later. In substance, by Annexure-2, the Chancellor accorded to the Yogoda Satsanga Mahavidyalaya the status of a minority Institution u/s 48-B of the Act and by Annexure-6 refused to reconsider that decision. It is worth noticing that Annexure-2 is dated the 7th April, 1970 and Annexure-6 is dated the 27th of January, 1982, that is, almost 12 years later. It appears that during this period, the Yogoda Satsanga Mahavidyalaya has been treated as a minority college u/s 48-B of the Act. It further appears that the Senate of the Ranchi University also ratified and approved the decision of the Chancellor at its meeting held on the 24th of April, 1971. 2. The case of the petitioner is that Yogoda Safsanga Society of India, respondent No. 1, as well as Yogoda Satsanga Mahavidyalaya applied to the Ranchi University for the grant of minority status to the college, respondent No. 2, but the Vice Chancellor of the Ranchi University by his order dated 17-11-1969 held that the college could not get minority right under Article 39 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, was not entitled to the benefit of Section 48-B of the Bihar State University Act, 1980. This order of the Vice Chancellor was approved by the Syndicate of the University at its meeting held on 25-11-1989 vide Annexure-1. Act cording to the petitioner, the order of the Chancellor and the Resolution of the Syndicate aforesaid was also approved by the Senate of the University on 26-12-1969 though no material has been produced in support of this fact. According to the petitioner, the Chancellor of the University had no power to grant minority status to a college, and this had been decided by the chancellor even earlier to the decision given by the Vice Chancellor in the instant case. In this connection the petitioner has relied upon the letter from the Governors Secretariat date 18-3-1869: where by it was communicated to the University that there was no provision in the Act or in the statutes of the Ranchi University under which a ruling on the point was called for from the Chancellor. In this connection the petitioner has relied upon the letter from the Governors Secretariat date 18-3-1869: where by it was communicated to the University that there was no provision in the Act or in the statutes of the Ranchi University under which a ruling on the point was called for from the Chancellor. It was stated that necessary papers should be examined by the University itself and after obtaining legal opinion on the point either from the Advocate General or the legal advisor of the University, a decision may be arrived at by the Syndicate itself, One of the points urged before me was that since the Chancellor had no power to accord minority status, the impugned order Annexure-2 had been passed without authority of law. The petitioners case is that despite the fact that the Chancellor had no such power, on a representation made by the respondent No. 1-Society to the Chancellor the matter was referred to the Secretary, Law Department for his advise and on the basis of advise rendered by the Secretary Law Department, the Chancellor declared respondent No. 2-College as a minority college based on religion within the meaning of Sec. 48-B of the Act. This order was communicated to the Vice-Chancellor on 7-4-1970. According to the petitioner, such an order was passed by the Chancellor behind the back of the University authorities. The Vice-Chancellor of the University wrote to the Chancellor on the 31st of May, 1970 objecting to the grant of recognition to the college as a minority institution under Sec. 48-B of the Act. According to the petitioner there was no justification for grant of such status to the respondent No. 2- College since it did not fulfil the conditions for recognition as a minority college based on religion. The petitioner states that on 8-5-81 the Syndicate of Ranchi University passed a resolution requesting the Chancellor to recall his order declaring respondent No. 2-College as a minority college. But by Annexure-6 dated 27-1-1982 the Chancellor refused to reconsider his earlier decision. It is stated in paragraph 3(k) of the writ application that since the representations of the teachers through the petitioner-Association and of the University-authorities made directly to the Chancellor, were pending during the years 1970 to January 1982 the petitioner had no earlier opportunity to move this Court. It is stated in paragraph 3(k) of the writ application that since the representations of the teachers through the petitioner-Association and of the University-authorities made directly to the Chancellor, were pending during the years 1970 to January 1982 the petitioner had no earlier opportunity to move this Court. On these averments, the petitioner has prayed that the order granting recognition as a minority institution, Annexure-2, as well as the order of the Chancellor refusing to reconsider the aforesaid decision by Annexure-6i, be quashed. 3. Respondents 1 and 2 are the Yogoda Satsanga-Society of India, a registered society, and the Yogoda Satsanga Mahavidyalaya respectively. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed on their behalf. The Ranchi University through its Vice-Chancellor is respondent No. 3 whereas the Chancellor is respondent No. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 as well. In both the affidavits, the assertions made by the petitioner in its writ application have been denied and it has been contended that the Chancellor was fully competent to pass an order as contained in Annexure-2 and there was nothing to justify recall of the aforesaid order. Respondents 3 and 4 in their counter affidavit have challenged the right of the petitioner to maintain the instant writ application. It has been stated that the petitioner-Association has no legal status of its own under any law and hence such an Association cannot maintain the instant writ application. It has then been pleaded that the petitioner-Association cannot claim any legal right for review of the order of the Chancellor passed as far back as on 7th of April, 1970. It has been asserted that the Chancellor was fully within his rights to pass the order, Annexure-2, and in fact, the Senate of the University had also accepted his decision by recognising the college and giving to it the status of a minority institution under Sec. 43-B of the Act, in the year 1971. It has, therefore, been contended that after such recognition had been accorded by the Chancellor as also the Senate of the University, such a decision cannot be challenged after a lapse of almost 12 years during which period the college has always been treated as a minority institution under Sec. 48-B of the Act. 4. It has, therefore, been contended that after such recognition had been accorded by the Chancellor as also the Senate of the University, such a decision cannot be challenged after a lapse of almost 12 years during which period the college has always been treated as a minority institution under Sec. 48-B of the Act. 4. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Society and the college, respondents 1 and 2 respectively. According to these respondents, the Society for the purpose of spreading its teaching established and administers a school in Ranchi known as Yogoda Satsanga Vidyalaya. This school was duly declared by the State Government as an institution established and administered by a minority based on religion, by order dated 27-5-1970. The said school is functioning as a minority institution in the same campus as the college. The Society decided to expand its educational activities to further advance its objectives and, therefore, decided to start a college. The college was granted affiliation by the Ranchi University initially up to the pre-University and Degree Part I stage but later on it was granted final affiliation up to the Full Degree standard in Arts and Commerce, in the first instance for two years and, thereafter, the same is being renewed from time to time. According to these respondents, the Society is a minority based on religion and has been adjudged as such. It is not necessary for me to refer to the facts stated by these respondents in support of the plea that it is a religious minority. The respondents also claimed that its schools in the State of West Bengal are recognised as schools managed/conducted by the Society. On the basis of its being a minority based on religion. The petitioner, according to these respondents is not a registered and/or corporate body and has no legal existence in the eye of law. It has consequently no right to file the wit application. In any event it is not an aggrieved person and the previous decision of the Chancellor dated 7-4-1970 and the subsequent acceptance by the Senate of the Ranchi University recognising respondent No. 2 as a minority society based on religion, are final and not open to revision. The Chancellor was, therefore, fully justified in refusing to reconsider the matter by his decision dated 27-1-1982. The Chancellor was, therefore, fully justified in refusing to reconsider the matter by his decision dated 27-1-1982. Moreover, after lapse of 12 years, the petitioner Association cannot claim any relief for reviewing the Chancellors order. 5. Respondents 1 and 2 have contended that the order passed by the Vice-Chancellor on 17-11-69 was clearly erroneous in law and contrary to the well settled principles of Constitutional law. The Vice-Chancellor was in error to thinking that the society did not have many adherents in this country and that with the passage of time as they get more and more followers, the distinctive feature of their work and practices will be highlighted and become known to the society in general. It may then recognise this society as religious minority. But so long as such a sizeable minority community is not there, the question of starting an Institution for imparting education to the children of that community does not arise and, therefore, respondent No. 2 could not claim any right under Article 30 of the Constitution and, therefore, could not get the benefit of Sec. 48-B of the Act. According to respondents 1 and 2, this approach is entirely erroneous and contrary to the principles well settled by the Supreme Court. Since the Vice-Chancellor had taken a decision contrary to well settled principles of law, the society made a representation to the Chancellor against the order of the Vice-Chancellor. The Chancellor took advise from the Law Secretary of the State Government and after obtaining such advise directed that the college should be treated as an Institution established and administered by religious minority within the meaning of Sec. 48-B of the Act. Despite the clear orders of the Chancellor, the then Vice-Chancellor by letter dated 31-5-1970 challenged the direction of the Chancellor. This led the Chancellor to give clarification under his letter dated 26-5-70 calling for proceedings of the University bodies for formal action by him, if -necessary. In these circumstances, the Vice-Chancellor brought the issue before the authorities of the University for revision the earlier decisions and the Senate in its meeting held on the 24th April, 1971, accepted the finding of the Chancellor. In these circumstances, the Vice-Chancellor brought the issue before the authorities of the University for revision the earlier decisions and the Senate in its meeting held on the 24th April, 1971, accepted the finding of the Chancellor. Shortly thereafter the College received a letter from the Registrar of the University dated 14-5-71 extending its affiliation and indicating that the college was required to follow the provisions of Sec. 48-B of the Act in the recruitment of its teaching staff. The Deputy Registrar of the Ranchi University also by his letter dated 20th October, 1971 informed the Deputy Secretary in the Chancellors Secretariat that a decision to declare the college as an affiliated college established and administered by religious minority in terms of Sec. 48-B had been taken by the Senate at its last meeting and affiliation of the college was granted for the next session. It was, therefore, contended that not only the Chancellor but also the Senate of the University declared the College as a minority college in terms of Sec. 48-B of the Act. According to respondents 1 and 2, after grant of recognition to the college as a college established and administered by religious minority, the matter got settled and there was no dispute about such recognition. However, by mistake in July 1980, 112 colleges were declared by the State Government as constituent colleges of the University and by mistake respondent No. 2 college was also declared a constituent college. This mistake was rectified. But some of the teachers of the college got inspired from this fact and they started scheming to have the college converted into a constituent college. The respondents have characterised the contents of paragraph 3(k) of the writ application as untrue and misleading. It has been categorically asserted that no representation was pending with the Chancellor from 1970 to 1982 and the same cannot be used as a cloak by the petitioner to explain this lapse of over one decade. These respondents have challenged the petitioner to produce any protest application referred to in paragraph 3(k) of the writ application. It has, therefore, been contended that this writ application should be rejected on the ground of undue delay and laches, as well as on the ground of suppression of material facts and for filing false affidavit. 6. These respondents have challenged the petitioner to produce any protest application referred to in paragraph 3(k) of the writ application. It has, therefore, been contended that this writ application should be rejected on the ground of undue delay and laches, as well as on the ground of suppression of material facts and for filing false affidavit. 6. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Chancellor had no power to declare the respondent-college as a college established and administered by religious minority. The Chancellor having earlier declared by his order dated 18-3-1969 that he had no such power, could not review his earlier decision. Secondly it was urged that in any event the Chancellor exercised the power contrary to rules of natural justice as no notice was given to the concerned parties meaning thereby the University. Thirdly it was contended that on the basis of the material on record, the Chancellor was not justified in coming to the conclusion that the college was established and administered by a religious minority. 7. On the other hand it has been contended on behalf of respondents that the petitioner could not maintain the instant writ application since it was not a registered body. Moreover, the writ petition having been filed after a lapse of almost 12 years after the impugned order was passed by the Chancellor, ought to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches alone. Thirdly it was submitted that the Chancellor was fully justified in passing the impugned order which he did in exercise of lawful authority after following the requirements of natural justice. The Chancellor in the exercise of his power was authorised to set aside any order of the University which was not in conformity with the Act, the Statute or the Regulation. 8. It was vehemently urged on behalf of the respondents that the Ranch! University Teachers Association which is the petitioner in the instant writ application is not even a registered society or association. The aforesaid Association has no concern whatsoever with the respondent college. It is not a legal person and, therefore, cannot maintain the instant writ application. The submission has fores and must be accepted. University Teachers Association which is the petitioner in the instant writ application is not even a registered society or association. The aforesaid Association has no concern whatsoever with the respondent college. It is not a legal person and, therefore, cannot maintain the instant writ application. The submission has fores and must be accepted. In the writ petition, the petitioner has been described as follows : Ranchi University Teacher Association, an organisation affiliated under Law having its registered office at Luby Road, Dhanbad, through its general Secretary Sri Prabhakar Singh s/o. late Shashi Singh Professor and Reader P. K, Roy. Memorial College, Dhanbad, having his office and residence at Luby Road, Dhanbad. There is only one petitioner which is the Association and which has filled the instant writ application through its General Secretary. In paragraph 3(g) of the writ application, it has been stated that the petitioner is representing the general body of the teachers who are bound to be affected by the above decision. In paragraph 3(k) it has been averred that since the representations of the teachers through the petitioner-Association and the University-authority made directly to the Chancellor were pending during the years 1970 to January, 1982 and the impugned order Annexure-5; was communicated to the petitioner only in July, 1982, the petitioner-Association had no earlier opportunity to move this Court. In its counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4, namely the Ranchi University and its Chancellor, the claim of the petitioner-Association has been denied and it has been contended that the petitioner-Association cannot claim any legal right for review of the Chancellors order passed as far back as on the 7th of April, 1970. It has further been contended that the writ application at the instance of the petitioner-Association which is only an Association and has no legal status or existence of its own under any law or rule having the force of law, is not maintainable and ought to be rejected on this ground alone. Respondents 1 and 2, the Society and the College have also reiterated the same statements in their counter affidavit. It has been averred in paragraph 16 of their counter affidavit that the petitioner-Association is not registered and/or corporate body and has no legal existence in the eye of law and consequently had no right to file the writ petition. Respondents 1 and 2, the Society and the College have also reiterated the same statements in their counter affidavit. It has been averred in paragraph 16 of their counter affidavit that the petitioner-Association is not registered and/or corporate body and has no legal existence in the eye of law and consequently had no right to file the writ petition. The petitioner in reply to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 3 and 4 has slated in paragraph 2(ii) that the petitioner-Association is an affiliate of All India Federation of University and Teachers Association registered under the Societies Registration Act and is duly recognised Union of the Ranchi University representing the largest body of the teachers belonging to the Ranchi University who are going to be affected by the order of the Chancellor in question. 9. From the averments in the writ petition and the counter affidavit as well as rejoinder affidavit, it is manifest that the petitioner Association is not a registered society. It has no legal status and as such cannot maintain a writ application. The question is not a question of locus standi, The petitioner-Association is not at all a legal person and hence cannot maintain a writ application. 10. But a more serious objection to the grant of any relief to the petitioner is the inordinate delay in filing the instant writ application. As has been noticed earlier, the Chancellor had passed on order in favour of respondents 1 and 2 accepting the status of respondent-college as a college established and administered by a religious minority. This order was passed as early as on 7-4-1970. By his aforesaid direction, the respondent-college was to be treated as a minority college based on religion within the meaning of Sec. 48-B of the Bihar State Universities Act. The instant writ application was filed on the 4th of September, 1982, that is more than 12 years later. The explanation furnished by the petitioner is that representations were directly made to the Chancellor which were pending and only on 27-1-1982 the Chancellor refused to review his earlier decision. Upon coming to know of this decision of the Chancellor, the petitioner filed the instant writ application. It is to be seen whether this assertion of the petitioner is factually correct. Upon coming to know of this decision of the Chancellor, the petitioner filed the instant writ application. It is to be seen whether this assertion of the petitioner is factually correct. As noticed earlier, the petitioner in paragraph 3(k) of the writ application has stated that since the representations of the teachers through the petitioner Association and of the University authority made directly to the Chancellor were pending during the years 1970 to 1982, the petitioner had no earlier opportunity for moving this Court. In this connection reference has been made to Annexure-7C, Annexure-8, Annexure-8B and Annexures 11 and 11A, the letter of Sri B. K. Lal dated 24-3-8] and the resolution of the Syndicate Annexure-5 seeking reconsideration of the Chancellors earlier decision. Annexure 1C is a letter written by the Head of the Department of Geology who appears to have been the University-representative on the Governing Body of the College. The letter is dated 24-8-76 and is addressed to the Registrar of the Ranchi University. Various complain Is have been made in the aforesaid letter about the manner in which the Governing Body had been functioning. This letter cannot be considered to be a representation to the Chancellor for revising his earlier decision. Annexure-8 is again a representation to the Vice Chancellor of the Ranchi University dated 14-2-1981 for converting the respondent-college into a constituent college in which allegations have been made of mal-administration and misuse of illegal minority status by the college-authorities. Apart from the fact that this is a communication of the year 1981, it is not a representation to the Chancellor for rescinding his earlier decision regarding grant of minority status to the college. Annexure-8A is a letter written by one P. Bhattacharya to the Vice Chancellor of the Ranchi University in which he brought to his notice some new facts regarding the appointment of Vice Principal of the respondent-college. In the end of this representation, he has also stated that the minority status given to the college be reconsidered. Though a copy of this letter has been endorsed to the Chancellor of the University this cannot be considered to be a representation to the Chancellor for revising his earlier order accepting the status of the college a an Institution established and administered by a religious minority. Though a copy of this letter has been endorsed to the Chancellor of the University this cannot be considered to be a representation to the Chancellor for revising his earlier order accepting the status of the college a an Institution established and administered by a religious minority. Annexure-11 is a letter written by the petitioner-Association to revoke the religious minority status given to the respondent-college and for its immediate take over. This letter is dated the 10th of August, 1981. The order passed by the Chancellor earlier is dated 7th of April, 1970. This representation, therefore, was made 11 years and 4 months after the Chancellor had passed the impugned order dated 7-4-70. It is worth noticing that in this representation, there is no mention of any earlier representation having been made by the Association. Similarly Annexure-11A bears the date 25th March, 1981. This is a letter written by a member of the Syndicate addressed to the Vice Chancellor of the University requesting that the matter regarding the respondent-college being converted into a constituent unit of the Ranchi University be placed before the next meeting of the Syndicate. Obviously this letter is not a representation to the Chancellor for revising his earlier decision. Annexure-11A is letter written by another member of the Syndicate to the Vice Chancellor of the Ranchi University. This letter is dated 24th of March, 1981. For the same reason, this cannot be considered to be a representation pending before the Chancellor. Lastly reliance was placed upon the resolution of the Syndicate Annexure-5 dated 8-541981. By this resolution, it was resolved that the Chancellor should be requested by the Syndicate to reconsider the decision regarding grant of minority status to the respondent-college. 11. On a careful perusal of all these documents, it appears that there are only two representations brought on record which can be described as representations to the Chancellor for reconsidering his earlier decision dated 7-4-1970. The first is a resolution of the Syndicate dated 8-5-1981 and the other is the representation Annexure-II dated 10-8-1981 made by the Secretary of the Ranchi University Teachers Association. It is, therefore, patent on record that neither the petitioner-Association nor any other teacher through the petitioner-Association had made any re presentation to the Chancellor except Annexure-11 which is dated 10th August, 1981. It is, therefore, patent on record that neither the petitioner-Association nor any other teacher through the petitioner-Association had made any re presentation to the Chancellor except Annexure-11 which is dated 10th August, 1981. This representation was made 11 years and 4 months after the order passed by the Chancellor on 7-4-1970. No material has been placed before me to explain this delay of 11 years and 4 months. During this period, the respondent-college has been treated as an Institution established and administered by a religious minority. Even thereafter, it has been so treated. In the absence of any explanation for the delay, the petitioner cannot pray for grant of any discretionary relief in their favour. The assertion made by the petitioner in paragraph 3(k) of the writ application appears to be false. There appears to be substance in the submission of the respondent-society and college that the order passed by the Chancellor as early as in April, 1970 had been accepted by all concerned and subsequently the Senate of the University also accepted the college to be one established and administered by a religious minority. Unfortunately, in July, 1980, the State Government declared 112 colleges as constituent colleges of the Ranchi University and by mistake the name of the respondent-college was also included in the said list. This mistake was subsequently rectified, because the college being a college established and administered by religious minority could not be declared as a constituent college. This mistake inspired many to start agitation to get the college converted into a constituent college. It was, therefore, urged on their behalf that the representations to the Chancellor for revising his earlier order dated 7-4-70 are all after 1980. By the communication, Annexure-6 dated 27-1-82, which appears to be in response to the letter of the Registrar dated 12-6-81, the Registrar of the Ranchi University had been informed that the Chancellor had found no case to review his earlier decision in regard to the religious minority status of the respondent-college. It is not clear from the record as to under what circumstances the letter of the Registrar of the University was sent to the Governors Secretariat, Bihar. In all likelihood it had been written by the Registrar of the Ranchi University pursuant to the resolution of the Syndicate passed on 8-5-81, Annexure-5. It is not clear from the record as to under what circumstances the letter of the Registrar of the University was sent to the Governors Secretariat, Bihar. In all likelihood it had been written by the Registrar of the Ranchi University pursuant to the resolution of the Syndicate passed on 8-5-81, Annexure-5. I am, therefore, of the considered view that if the petitioner or anyone else was aggrieved by the order dated 7-4-701 passed by the Chancellor of the University, he should have challenged the aforesaid order before a court of law within a reasonable time. An unexplained delay of almost 11 years and 4 months is a good ground for refusal to grant any discretionary relief in the exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. It was also submitted on behalf of the respondents that the Chancellor had no power to review his order under the Act and reliance was placed upon a Bench decision of this Court in Smt. Saraswati Mishra V/s. The Chancellor, 1981 PLJR 27. Thus pendency of any application for review was not a valid ground for condonation of delay. In the view that I have taken it is not necessary for me to go into this question. 12. Having found that there is no reasonable explanation for the delay of over 11 years, it was not necessary for me to consider the other submissions of the petitioner, since this application must be rejected on the ground of delay alone. But I consider it necessary in the interest of justice to examine the other submission urged on behalf of the petitioner to find out whether this is a gross case where refusal to grant relief on the technical objection of delay above may result in serious miscarriage of justice, or have serious and adverse effect on larger public interest. For in such cases, the Court may, having regard to the overriding consideration of larger public interest, not view the delay with such seriousness that it may entail dismissal of the petition on the ground of delay alone. But even on the merit, the petitioner has no case. For in such cases, the Court may, having regard to the overriding consideration of larger public interest, not view the delay with such seriousness that it may entail dismissal of the petition on the ground of delay alone. But even on the merit, the petitioner has no case. Learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the University submitted that the Chancellor had exercised the power vested in him under Section 8(4) of the Bihar State Universities (Universities of Bihar, Bhagalpur and Ranchi) Act, 1960 in short to be stated as the Act). Sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Act provides that the Chancellor may by order in writing annul any proceeding of the University which is not in conformity with the Act, Statute, the Ordinances, or the Regulations. He, therefore, submitted that even if the Vice Chancellor of the Ranchi University took a decision refusing to recognise the respondent college as a college established and administered by religious minority, such a decision can be annulled by the Chancellor under Sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Act. The proviso of the said sub-section provides that before making any such order, the Chancellor must call up the University to show cause why such an order should not be made. That according to him was done in the instant case. The original file was produced before me to satisfy me that before passing the aforesaid order the Chancellor had considered the University views as well. He had obtained the opinion of the Law Secretary and only after considering all the materials which had been discussed in the file, took a decision in favour of the respondent-college. It appears from the opinion of the Law Secretary which is Annexure-6 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that he had taken into account the legal opinion of the then Advocate General of Bihar on this question, and agreeing with the opinion of the Advocate General, he also came to the conclusion that respondent-college was an Institution established and administered by a religious minority. In the opinion of the Law Secretary the reason given by the Vice-Chancellor for not recognising the Institution as such has also been discussed. 13. In the opinion of the Law Secretary the reason given by the Vice-Chancellor for not recognising the Institution as such has also been discussed. 13. At this stage it may be useful to consider the reason given by the Vice-Chancellor for not recognising the respondent-college as an Institution established and administered by a religious minority. Order of the Vice-Chancellor has been annexed as Annexure-5 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. From this order it appears that the only ground on which he did not recognise the respondent-college as an Institution established and administered by a religious minority was that the society which had established the college did not have many adherents in this country. He was of the view that with the passage of time, when it gets more and more adherents it may then be recognised as a religious minority. The relevant part of the order may be quoted :- A handful of people, whatever their religious belief, starting an educational institution, cannot claim for their institution the right conferred on a minority under Article 30 of the Constitution. The provision of the Constitution is to safeguard the interest of members of the community and the children of that religious minority studying in that Institution. It is not meant to safeguard the interest of the proprietors of the Institution. Otherwise, even one individual can start an educational institution and claim the right under Article 30 of the Constitution, noting that he subscribes to a faith other than a Hindu faith. The sizeable number of the minority is, therefore, an essential ingredient to bring that minority within the purview of Article 30 of the Constitution. The Yogoda Salsanga Society of India does not have many adherents in this country. The Advocate General, in his note, has confirmed this. He has said that the number of its adherents in this country is not very appreciable. With the passage of time, as they get more and more adherents the distinctive features of their professions and practice highlighted and become known to society in general may then recognise this group (Yogoda Satsanga Society) as religious minority, just as they have recognised the Arya Samaj arid the Brahmo Samaj. With the passage of time, as they get more and more adherents the distinctive features of their professions and practice highlighted and become known to society in general may then recognise this group (Yogoda Satsanga Society) as religious minority, just as they have recognised the Arya Samaj arid the Brahmo Samaj. It will, thus, appear that even the Vice-Chancellor was not of the view that the Society which had established the college was not a religious minority, but he was of the view that until it had a sizeable number of adherents, it could not be granted that recognition. 14 In my view it was rightly urged on behalf of the respondents that the opinion of the Vice-Chancellor was clearly contrary to the provision of the Constitution. If there was a religious minority the mere fact that it had not a very large following could be no ground for refusing to recognise it as a religious minority having regard to the provisions of Article 30 of the Constitution. All that the Chancellor did was to correct the mistake committed by the Vice-Chancellor. In these circumstances, I do not feel persuaded to interfere with the order of the Chancellor. 15. Replying to the submission urged on behalf of the petitioner that the Chancellor having earlier refused to decide the matter on 18-3-1969 on the ground that he had no power to do so, could not review his earlier decision and pass the impugned order dated 7-4-1980, it was submitted that the earlier order had been passed by the Chancellor when the then Vice-1 Chancellor of the University made a reference on the subject to the Chancellor. The Chancellor obviously felt that it was not for him to decide this question as it was for the University in the first instance to consider the matter. It was, therefore, rightly contended on behalf of the University that after the University had considered the matter, the Chancellor in, exercise of his power under Section 8 (4) of the Act, considered the legality of such an order in exercise of the power vested in him by that section. The submission is sound and must be accepted. 16. It was, therefore, rightly contended on behalf of the University that after the University had considered the matter, the Chancellor in, exercise of his power under Section 8 (4) of the Act, considered the legality of such an order in exercise of the power vested in him by that section. The submission is sound and must be accepted. 16. Learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 namely the Society and the college urged that in any view of the matter, the Senate of the Ranchi University had also recognised the college as an Institution established and administered by a religious minority. Petitioner had asked for quashing of the order of the Chancellor but had not prayed for the quashing of the resolution of the Senate whereby the Institution had been recognised as such. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the University it has been stated that the Chancellors decision was communicated to the University and the same was placed in the meeting of the Senate held in December, 1971 and the Senate on consideration of the entire matter did recognise the college giving it the status of a minority Institution, Respondents 1 and 2 also in their counter affidavit have stated that so far as it was known to the deponent, the matter was placed before the meeting of the Senate of the University held on 24th April, 1971 and the Chancellors finding was accepted by the Senate of the University. Thereafter, the college received a communication from the Registrar of the Ranchi University dated 14-5-1971 extending its affiliation and indicating that the college was required to follow the provisions of Sec. 488 of the Act in the recruitment of its teaching staff. Sec. 488 of the Act deals with power of colleges established and administered by religious minority to make appointments etc. of teachers. A copy of that letter has been annexed as Annexure-G to the counter affidavit. Annexure-H is a letter written by the Deputy Registrar of the Ranchi University addressed to the Deputy Secretary in the Chancellors Secretariat and is dated 20th October, 1971. By the aforesaid communication, the Chancellors Secretariat was informed that the Senate of the University in its last meeting had taken a decision to declare the respondent-college as an affiliate college established and administered by a religious minority under Sec. 488 of the Act. By the aforesaid communication, the Chancellors Secretariat was informed that the Senate of the University in its last meeting had taken a decision to declare the respondent-college as an affiliate college established and administered by a religious minority under Sec. 488 of the Act. Respondents 1 and 2 have also annexed to their counter affidavit Annexure-I which is letter dated 1st April, 1977 written by the Registrar of the Ranchi University to the Director of Public Instruction intimating that the respondent-college had been declared as a minority college by the Senate under Section, 488 of the Act. In view of the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the University and in view of Annexures G., H. and I, there is no reason for me to doubt that the Senate of the Ranchi University has recognised the respondent college as an institution established and administered by a religious minority. The power to grant affiliation under Sec.20(2) (d) of the Act is that of the Senate, and not the Syndicate which can only recommend to the Senate any proposal for affiliation received by it under Sec.22(h) of the Act. The Senate having endorsed the view of the Chancellor, no interference by this Court is called for. 17. I, therefore, find that the petitioner is not entitled to maintain this writ application. But, a more serious objection to the grant of relief to the petitioner is that the writ application is inordinately delayed and no resaonable explanation has been furnished by the petitioner to explain the delay of over 11 years, in filing this writ application for the reliefs claimed. Even on the merit, I find that the reasons given by the Vice-Chancellor for refusing to recognise the respondent-college as a college established and administered by a religious minority were not correct having regard to the provisions of Article 30 of the Constitution of India, The Chancellor of the University in exercise of powers vested in him under Section 8(4) of the Act set aside the order of the Vice-Chancellor and corrected the illegality by recognising the respondent-college as a college established and administered by a religious minority. The decision of the Chancellor has been accepted by the Senate of the University subsequently which is the appropriate authority for considering the grant of affiliation to a college in the first instance. The decision of the Chancellor has been accepted by the Senate of the University subsequently which is the appropriate authority for considering the grant of affiliation to a college in the first instance. In view of all these, I do not find that this is a case in which this Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the order of the Chancellor passed as far back as in the year 1970 and to completely upset the position well settled over the last 18 years by recognition of the respondent-college as one established and administered by a religious minority. This writ application is, therefore, dismissed. But, there will be no order as to costs.