Judgment N.P.Singh, J. 1. This writ application has been filed on behalf of the petitioners for quashing an order of the state Government declaring Allama Iqbal College, Biharsharif (hereinafter referred to as the College) as a minority institution within the meaning of Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution. 2. The petitioners, who are the members of teaching and non-teaching staff of the College, have asserted that the College aroresaid had been established as an institution to impart education to all section of people having no connection with preservation of any culture or language of any group of persons who can be described as members of minority community within the meaning of Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution. 3. It appears that Shri Shah Javedy (Respondent No. 7) claiming to be the Secretary of the said College filed a writ application (C.W.J.C. No. 5885 of 1984) before this Court for a direction to the State to declare the aforesaid College as a minority institution, on basis of the recommendation dated 30.8.1984 made by the Vice-Chancellor of the Magadh University (hereinafter referred to as the University). A Bench of this Court on 7.2.85 passed an order directing the State Government to take a decision in respect of the nature of the institution within two months. 4. By a communication dated 16.4.1985, the State Government informed the respondent-University that it was not possible to declare the College aforesaid as a minority institution-Being aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the State Government, respondent No. 7. The Secretary of the College-filed another writ application (C.W.J.-No. 2120 of 1985) before this Court for quashing of the aforesaid communication of the State Government. A Bench of this Court on 4.9.1986, while allowing the writ application aforesaid, pointed out that the impugned order saying that the State Government was not prepared to declare the institution as a minority institution was a non-speaking order; as such it was not possible for this Court to show as to what was the reason which had induced the State Government to come to that decision when the Univerisity which is the affiliating body had recommended that the College be declared a minority institution. The relevant parts of the aforesaid order are as follows: By the impugned annexure all that has been said is, with reference to the letter of the Vice-chancellor dated 30.8.84 addressed to the State Government, that the Allama Iqbal College and Allied Institutions shall not be declared as a minority institution and that the State Government was not prepared to accept the recommendation of the University to declare it as such. Admittedly the affiliating body is the University, but subject to the approval of the State Government, Without going into any previous background with regard to the facts, suffice it to say that the University had recommended the petitioners college to be declared as a minority institution and the approval of the State Government was sought in that regard by the University, which could, then only, grant affiliation to the petitioners College. The impugned order does not give any reason as to why the State Government is not agreeable to accept the recommendation of the University and as to why the State Government was not in a position to accord approval to the petitioners college being declared a minority institution. In other words, the impugned order is a non-speaking order. It is not possible for the Court to say on a plain reading of the impugned annexure 19 as to what was the reason which had induced the State Government to refuse its approval in disregard of the Universitys recommendation. When the mater had earlier come before this Court at one stage in C.W.J.C No. 5885/84 this Court ordered on 7.2.85 as contained in annexure 18 directing the State Government to dispose of the question of minority matters within two months. This evidently meant that a speaking order should be passed by the State Government while disposing of the minority matter and not by such a cryptic order by a so-called disposal of the question as contained in the impugned annexure 19. In spite of this Courts direction the learned Advocate General appearing for the University has fairly admitted the position that no order has been passed by the State Government in speaking terms setting forth the grounds for such refusal. (emphasis added) 5. As per direction given by this Court, the question relating to minority character of the institution was examined afresh by the State Government. (emphasis added) 5. As per direction given by this Court, the question relating to minority character of the institution was examined afresh by the State Government. Thereafter, by communication dated 17th August, 1988, the State Government informed the Registrar of the University that the State Government had taken a decision to declare the institution aforesaid as a minority institution because if fulfilled the conditions prescribed by the State Government in its letter dated 16.1.1978 for declaration of an institution as a minority institution. This decision of the State Government has been challenged, in the present writ application. According to the petitioners, the College was not established by members of the minority community rather members of different communities contributed for the establishment of the said College, it has been asserted that 85% of the total students of the College are Hindus and the same was the ratio regarding the teaching and non-teaching staff of the College. It has been stated that the medium of the teaching of the institution is not Urdu ; as such the College should not have been declared as a minority institution. 6. On what materials an institution can be held to be a minority institution within the meaning of Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution, has been subject-matter of controversy before different Courts including Supreme Court. In several judgments it has been observed by the Supreme Court that for being declared as a minority institution it is not necessary that all the students and teachers of the institution should be of the minority community; even members of other community can be admitted for education or for imparting education. Reference in this connection may be made to the well-known judgments in the case of In re The Kerala Education Bill, 1975, Special Ref. No. 1 of 1958; AIR 1958 Supreme Court 956 Rev. Father W. Proost and Ors. V/s. The State of Bihar and Ors. -- . The Ahmedabad St. Xaviers College Society and Anr. V/s. State of Gujarat and Anr. -- . The All Saints High School etc. V/s. The Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. etc. -- and All Bihar Christian Schools Association and Anr. V/s. State of Bihar and Ors. -- . 7. V/s. The State of Bihar and Ors. -- . The Ahmedabad St. Xaviers College Society and Anr. V/s. State of Gujarat and Anr. -- . The All Saints High School etc. V/s. The Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. etc. -- and All Bihar Christian Schools Association and Anr. V/s. State of Bihar and Ors. -- . 7. Most of the disputes regarding the nature of the institutions came to this Court or to the Supreme Court, while challenging the authority of the State Government or the University concerned, saying that they were interfering with the management of such institutions. The special feature of the present case is that the State Government and the University have recognised the College in question as minority institution but that decision is being challenged by some of the members of the staff of the said College saying that the State Government should not have declared the College as a minority institution. 8. On behalf of the petitioners it was first submitted that this Court, while disposing of the earlier writ application (C.W.J.C. No. 2120 of 1985) by order dated 4.9.1980, had directed the Slate Government to decide the question of the minority nature of the College "by a speaking order", as such it was not open to the State Government to decide that question by a non-speaking order. In other words, in the impugned communication dated 17.8.1988, has been simply said that the State Government has declared the College in question as a minority institution because it fulfilled the conditions laid down by the State Government which was circulated by a communication dated 16.1.1978. 9. Mr. Sibal, the learned Additional Solicitor-General, who appeared for the State Government, took a stand that on proper reading of the earlier order of this Court, it should be held that when this Court directed to decide the question of the minority nature of the College by a speaking order, that direction was for the event the State Government again came to the conclusion that the College in question was not a minority institution; if the State Government, on consideration of materials on record, came to the conclusion that the institution in question was a minority institution, then there was no necessity or an occasion to discuss or to refer to the different materials, on the basis of which that decision had been taken. Alternatively, it was pointed out that, in the impugned communication, the reason for the declaration of the College as minority institution has been given, when it says that the College was being declared as a minority institution because it fulfilled the conditions prescribed by the State Government, in its communication dated 16.1.1978. That will amount to a substantial compliance of the earlier order of this Court. 10. From a bare reference to the order passed, in the earlier writ application, it will appear that this Court was not satisfied with the manner in which decision had been taken by the State Government that the College cannot be declared to be a minority institution. This Court, in the earlier order, observed as follows: The impugned order does not give any reason as to why the State Government is not agreeable to accept the recommendation of the University and as to why the State Government was not in a position to accord approval to the petitioners college being declared a minority institution. In orther words, the impugned order is a non-speaking order. It is not possible for the Court to say on a plain reading of the impugned annexure 19 as to what was the reason which had induced the State Government to refuse its approval in disregard of the Universitys recommendation. On a proper reading of the aforesaid order, in my view, when this Court, in the earlier writ application, directed the State Government to dispose of the minority matter not by a cryptic order but by a speaking order, that was applicable in the event the State Government was to reiterate its earlier decision that the College in question was not a minority institution. But when the State Government, on consideration of the materials on record and the enquiry reports, has come to the conclusion that the College in question be declared as a minority institution then, in that event, the State Government was not required to give detailed reasons for coming to the said conclusion. 11. So far the alternative stand of the respondents is that the impugned order recognising the College in question is a minority institution should be construed to be a speaking order, it is advisable first to refer to Section 60(5) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 11. So far the alternative stand of the respondents is that the impugned order recognising the College in question is a minority institution should be construed to be a speaking order, it is advisable first to refer to Section 60(5) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Sec. 60(5) of the Act is as follows: 6o (5)--The Governing Body/Managing Committee for the management and administration of a College owned and maintained by the State Government, or established and administered by a minority community, on the ground of religion or language and declared, from time to time, as such by the State Government according to yardsticks laid down by it, or of an affiliated technical or medical college, shall be constituted in accordance with the provisions prescribed by the Statutes. (emphasis added) On a plain reading of the aforesaid Sub-sec. (5) of Sec. 60 of the Act, State Government is required to declare an institution which has been established by members of the minority community as a minority institution "according to yardsticks laid down by it". 12 There is no dispute that the Department of Education, by aforesaid communication dated 16.1.1978, a copy whereof has been annexed by the petitioners themselves, in exercise of the power under Sub-sec. (5) of Sec. 60 has prescribed the yardsticks for declaration of an institution as a minority institution. The first condition prescribed is that such institution must have been established by members of the minority community. The second condition is that such college or the institution should be administered by a duly registered organization or trust. The third condition mentioned in that communication is that persons who claim to have established the institution in question must be members of minority community either on the basis of religion or language. The last condition mentioned is that although the object of the institution is to preserve the language and the culture of the minority community but it shall be open to the members of all communities including the members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. The conditions mentioned above are consistent with the Judgment of the Supreme Court, referred to above, and can be said to be touchstone for judging the real character of an institution. 13. The conditions mentioned above are consistent with the Judgment of the Supreme Court, referred to above, and can be said to be touchstone for judging the real character of an institution. 13. As already pointed out above, in t he communication, which is under challenge, it has been said that the College was being declared as a minority institution because it fulfilled the conditions laid down by the State Government for declaration of an institution as a minority institution. There is a reference to the aforesaid communication dated 16.1.1978. In my view, there has been a substantial compliance of the direction given earlier by this Court and the legality of the decision of the State Government cannot be challenged on this ground. 14. It need not be pointed Court that the State Government, while recognizing the College in question as a minority institution, was exercising a statutory power under Sec. 60(5) of the said Act which requires the State Government to declare a College as a College established and administered by a minority community, according to the yardsticks laid down by the State Government, from time to time. Sec. 60(5) does not require the State Government, while declaring any such College as a minority institution, to mention the materials, in the order in question, on the basis of which the State Government was satisfied that the institution be declared as a minority institution. Whenever any such declaration is challenged Courts are entitled to examine whether such declaration is based on some extraneous considerations. 15. According to the petitioners, the teaching and non-teaching staff of the College, many of them belong to Hindu community, have donated different amounts. They have also given the details of the students of the two communities, It was pointed out that when temporary affiliation was granted by the University there was no mention that the College was a minority institution. They have also referred to some reports regarding the irregularities alleged to have been committed by respondent No. 7 while managing the affairs of the College. One such report was submitted in the year 1984 by the District Magistrate, Nalanda to the Vice-Chancellor (Annexure-8 to the writ application) where he pointed out irregularities in making appointments in the said College as well as in respect of maladministration of the College. One such report was submitted in the year 1984 by the District Magistrate, Nalanda to the Vice-Chancellor (Annexure-8 to the writ application) where he pointed out irregularities in making appointments in the said College as well as in respect of maladministration of the College. He also pointed out that respondent No. 7, Sri Shah Javedy, had filed an application for declaring the said College as a minority institution but the primary purpose was to have complete control of the College; as such the College should not be declared as a minority institution. From a bare reference to the said report it shall appear that he had not examined the claim of the College being a minority institution in the light of the conditions mentioned in the aforesaid communication dated 16.1.1978. The District Magistrate had primarily reported about the maladministration of the College. Perhaps, on the basis of that report, the University constituted an Ad hoc Committee by notification dated 15.12.1984; the District Magistrate being its President. 16. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State, which has been sworn by the Deputy Director of Higher Education, Ministry of Human Resources Development Department, it has been asserted that, after the second direction issued by this Court to reconsider the question of minority nature of the institution, that question was examined on the basis of the materials on record in the light of the yardsticks mentioned in aforesaid communication dated 16.1.1976 before the impugned communication dated 17.8.1988 was issued. It has been stated that the number of Muslim and non-Muslim employees of the College was an extraneous consideration for the purpose of determination of denominational nature of the institution. Same was true even in respect of the students of the said institution. As to whether the institution had been established by members of the minority community, it has been stated on affidavit that a decision has been taken in a meeting of the Muslim citizens of Biharsharif under the Presidentship of Dr. Syed Md. Muzafiruddin Dardi on 20th July, 1978 to establish a Muslim minority College in Biharsharif in the name of Poet Sir Mohd. Iqbal. A further meeting was held on 15.8.1978 for establishment of a Muslim minority College and for the administration thereof a committee was constituted. Syed Md. Muzafiruddin Dardi on 20th July, 1978 to establish a Muslim minority College in Biharsharif in the name of Poet Sir Mohd. Iqbal. A further meeting was held on 15.8.1978 for establishment of a Muslim minority College and for the administration thereof a committee was constituted. That committee was to seek affiliation of the College with the University and to take steps for registration of the College under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Respondent No. 7, in the counter affidavit, filed on his behalf, has produced documents in support of the aforesaid assertion. On behalf of the respondents it was pointed out that, on the basis of aforesaid material, the State Government was satisfied that the College has been established by the members of the minority and as such the first condition mentioned in the communication aforesaid dated 16.1.1978 issued by the State Government had been fulfilled. It has also been stated that the second condition, which required the Society which had established the College to be a registered Society, had also been complied with in the present case. As Muslim community is undisputedly a minority community, the third condition did not require much examination. The fourth condition mentioned in the yardstick framed by the Government under Sec. 60(5) of the aforesaid Act requires that the purpose of any such institution may be to develop the language and culture of Muslim community, the doors of the College must be open to all. This condition has also been fulfilled on the admission of the petitioners themselves that most of the employees of the College are non Muslim. Same is the position in respect of students. 17. In the counter affidavit, it has also been pointed out that the materials on record were sent to the Law Department and, in due course, even the Advocate General was consulted. It may be mentioned that the opinion of the Department of Law or the Advocate General is not relevant when that issue is to be examined by this Court but, by referring to those opinions, perhaps, the stand of the State appears to be that the decision to declare the institution as a minority institution has not been taken in a hurry. In the counter affidavit, details of nothings of different officers of the Education Department have been given including that of the Deputy Director and Director, Higher Education and as to how the materials on record in support as well in opposition of the claim regarding the institution being a minority institution were scrutinised and examined by higher authorities. Reference has also been made to the opinion expressed by Deputy Secretary and Secretary of the Department of Education regarding the declaration of the institution as a minority institution. Ultimately it has been said that the file was put up before the Minister, Human Resources with all the recommendations and he approved the suggestion that institution be declared as a minority institution. It has been pointed out, in the counter affidavit, that the Vice-Chancellor of the University had earlier recommended after enquiry that the College be declared as a minority institution. That recommendation was not accepted by the State Government earlier which decision was quashed by this Court. While quashing that decision, this Court expressed its anquish as to how the recommendation made by the University for declaration of the institution as a minority institution has been rejected by a non-speaking order. 18. It need not be pointed out that whenever a dispute arises whether an institution should be declared as a minority institution, the statutory provisions enjoin the University and the State Goverment to examine on the basis of the materials available whether such claim is fictitious or false. While discharging that function, the University and the State Government have to be vigilant because many persons are interested in starting a commercial venture under the cloak of a denominational nature of the institution because many rules and regulations which are applicable to other institutions are not applicable to such institutions including restrictions in respect of establishment thereof. This aspect has also been noticed by the Supreme Court in the well-known case of A.P.C.M.E. Society V/s. Govt. of A.P. -- . 19. This aspect has also been noticed by the Supreme Court in the well-known case of A.P.C.M.E. Society V/s. Govt. of A.P. -- . 19. While exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution which is in nature of a supervisory power, this Court can interfere with any such recommendation by the University or decision of the State Government only when it is satisfied that the power has been exercised by the University and the State Government on some extraneous considerations which can be said to be malice in fact or in law or when the Court is satisfied that such decision has been taken without there being materials on the record. In the instant case, nothing has been pointed out on behalf of the petitioners, on the basis of which it can be said that the recommendation which has been made by the University or decision which has been taken by the State Government was not in bonafide exercise of power conferred on them. 20. The counsel for the petitioners also submitted that when this Court by aforesaid order dated 4.9.1986 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2120 of 1985 directed the State Government to consider the question of minority nature of the institution, the State Government should have taken that decision only on the basis of fresh materials. In my view, it is difficult to accept this contention. This Court had never directed that the said decision should be taken only on the basis of fresh reports or materials. This Court simply said that it was not proper on the part of the State Government especially in view of earlier direction of this Court to reject the recommendation of the University by a cryptic order without any reason. As such, it was open to the State Government to apply its mind to the question of declaration of the institution in question as a minority institution on the basis of the reports and materials which were already on the record as well as on the basis of the materials, reports and opinions received after the direction was given by this Court. 21. This writ application, accordingly, fails and it is dismissed. But, in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. N. Pandey, J. I agree.