Judgment :- Nainarsundaram, J.: In this batch of writ petitions, the challenge is of the constitutional vires of Secs.18-A and 18-B of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 hereinafter referred to as the Private Schools Act; and Secs.14-A and 14-B of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976, hereinafter referred to as the Private Colleges Act, in so far as they are to be made applicable to the Educational Institutions established and Administered by the petitioners, who are minorities. These provisions are similar. Sec.18-A of the Private Schools Act is in pari materia with Sec.14-A of the Private Colleges Act. Sec.18-A of the Private Schools Act corresponding to the Sec.14-A of the Private Colleges Act speaks about appointment of Special Officer in certain cases. Sec.18 Private Schools Act, corresponding to Sec.14-B of the Private Colleges Act, speaks about appeals to special tribunal as against orders under the preceding provision. Secs.18 18-B, set forth in Chapter IV-A were introduced into the Private Schools Act by the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act and Private Colleges (Regulation) Amendment Act, 1982, hereinafter referred to as the Amendment Act, effective from 1.6.1981. So also, Secs.14-A and 14-B, set forth in Chapter 1II-A, were introduced into Private Colleges Act by the Amendment Act, effective from 1.6.1981. By the enforcement sub-secs.(1) and (2) of Sec.l8-A of the Private Schools Act, corresponding to sub and (2) of Sec.14-A of the Private Colleges Act, there is an obvious inroad into the rights private schools and private colleges to have management or manager of their own choice, administer the educational institutions under their control and if these provisions are to enforced to private schools or private colleges, established and administered by minorities, that will do away with the preservation of the rights of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice, solemnly protected by Art.30(1) of the Constitution India. This is the sum and substance of the submissions made by Mr.T.Martin, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. It must be noted that sub-sec.(3) of Sec. 18 Private Schools Act, and the similar provision sub-sec.(3) of Sec.l4-A of the Private Colleges Act are explanatory provisions and clause (C) of sub-sec.(3) in each of the above sections includes a minority institution. This is the sum and substance of the submissions made by Mr.T.Martin, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. It must be noted that sub-sec.(3) of Sec. 18 Private Schools Act, and the similar provision sub-sec.(3) of Sec.l4-A of the Private Colleges Act are explanatory provisions and clause (C) of sub-sec.(3) in each of the above sections includes a minority institution. Sub-sec.(4) of Sec. 18-A of the Private Schools Act corresponding to sub-sec.(4) of Sec.14-A of the Private Colleges Act says sub-secs.(1) and (2) of the respective sections shall apply to a minority institution in so as they are not repugnant to clause (1) of Art.30 of the Constitution of India. Chapter 1V containing Secs.l8-A and 18-B of the Private Schools Act stand extracted as ‘ Appendix A this judgment of ours. Correspondingly, Chapter III-A containing Secs.l4-A and 14 Private Colleges Act stand extracted as ‘Appendix B’ to this judgment of ours. 2. The petitioners arc indisputably minorities and they have established; and they man administer educational institutions. Apprehending enforcement of the aforesaid provisions the Private Schools and Private Colleges Act, they have come to this Court for directions to apply to their educational institutions the said provisions. The right of the minorities establish and administer educational institutions of their choice is set forth in Art.30(1) Constitution. The set of expressions ‘ the right to establish and administer requires interpretation in tune and harmony with the substances of the right conferred by the The ‘ right to administer ’ certainly takes in the right to choose its own management manager. To our mind, there is no doubt as to what sub-secs.(2) and (3) of Sec.18 Private Schools Act and of Sec.14-A of the Private Colleges Act would do if they are invoked in respect of minority institutions. The right to administer educational institutions their choice preserved for minorities under Art.30(1) of the Constitution will certainly at naught. 3. As to how the rights of the minorities got to be guarded without the width and Art.30(1) of the Constitution of India circumscribed has found expression in College v. State of Gujarat, A.l.R. 1974 S.C. 1389, in the following terms: “A liberal, generous and sympathetic approach is reflected in the Constitution in the of the preservation of the right of minorities so far as their educational institutions concerned. Although attempts have been made in the past to whittle down the rights minorities in this respect, the vigilant sections of the minorities have resisted such Disputes have consequently arisen and come up before this Court for determining the impugned measures violate the provisions of the Constitution embodied in Arts.29 30. This Court has consistently upheld the rights of the minorities embodied in those and has ensured that the ambit and scope of the minority rights is not narrowed down. broad approach has been to see that nothing is done to impair the rights of the minorities the matter of their educational institutions and that the width and scope of the provisions the Constitution dealing with those rights are not circumscribed. The principle which discerned in the various decisions of this Court is that the catholic approach which led drafting of the provisions relating to minority rights should not be set at nought by judicial interpretation. The minorities are as such-children of the soil as the majority approach has been to ensure that nothing should be done as might deprive the minorities, a sense of belonging of a feeling of security, of a consciousness of equality and awareness that the conservation of their religion, culture, language and script as protection of their educational institutions is a fundamental right enshrined Constitution. The same generous, liberal and sympathetic approach should weigh courts in construing Arts.29 and 30 as marked the deliberations of the Constitution in drafting those articles and making them part of the fundamental rights. The safeguarding of the interests of the minorities amongst sections of population is as important protection of the interests amongst individuals of persons who are below the age of or are otherwise suffering from some kind of infirmity. The Constitution and the laws by civilised nations, therefore, generally contain provision for the protection of interests. It can, indeed be said to be an index of the level of civilisation and catholicity nation as to how far their minorities feel secure and are not subject to any discrimination suppression.” A Bench of this Court, to which one of us (Nainar Sundaram, J.) had been a party in Memorial High School Bethelpuram v. Government of Tamil Nadu, W. P. No. 1628 etc. order dated 10.9.1990, had occasion to advert to the above passage. order dated 10.9.1990, had occasion to advert to the above passage. The invoking of the aforesaid provisions of the Private Schools Act and the Colleges Act would undoubtedly do violence to the above principles. Sub-sec.(4) of of the Private Schools Act and of Sec. 14-A of the Private Colleges Act, of course, sounds word of caution that the concerned provisions shall apply to a minority institution in they are not repugnant to Art.30(1) of the Constitution of India. This will only tend the controversy alive and the position of the minority institutions in a nebulous stage legitimately the petitioners have come to this Court to have a declaration that the provisions could not apply to their educational institutions, as they arc patently violative of Art.30(1) the Constitution of India. There is no need to strain further over this point, because answer to this point has been given, by pronouncements of the highest Court in the construing similar provisions. In Kerala Education Bill, (1957) In the matter of, (1959)2S.C.J. 321, clause 14 of the Kerala Education Bill, (1957), came up for consideration as to whether could be construed as regulatory or totally destructive of the rights under Art.30(1) Constitution of India. It must be noted here that the right conferred on minorities to and administer educational institutions of their own is not absolute right, and is subject regulatory measures. The scope of clause 14 of the Kerala Education Bill, 1957 was discussed in the above pronouncement in the following terms: "Clause 14 is of considerable importance in that it provides, by sub-clause (1) Government, whenever it appears to it that the manager of any aided school has neglected to perform any of the duties imposed by or under the Bill or the Rules made thereunder, that in the public interest it is necessary so to do, may, after giving a reasonable opportunity to the manager of the Educational agency for showing cause against the proposed take over the management for a period of not exceeding five years. In cases of emergency the Government may, under sub-clause (2), take over the management after the publication of notification to that effect in the Gazette without giving any notice to the Educational agency or the manager. In cases of emergency the Government may, under sub-clause (2), take over the management after the publication of notification to that effect in the Gazette without giving any notice to the Educational agency or the manager. Where any school is thus taken over without any notice Educational agency or the manager may, within three months of the publication notification, apply to the Government for the restoration of the school showing the therefor. The Government is authorised to make orders which may be necessary or expedient in connection with the taking over of the management of an aided school. Under sub (5) the Government is to pay such rent as may be fixed by the Collector in respect properties taken possession of. On taking over any school the Government is authorized run it affording any special educational facilities which the school was doing immediately before such taking over. Right of appeal to the District Court is provided against the Collector fixing the rent. Sub-clause (8) makes it lawful for the Government to the school taken over under this clause if the Government is satisfied that it is necessary to do in the public interest, in which case compensation shall be payable in accordance the principles laid down in clause 15 for payment of compensation." The comment on the provision has been expressed as follows: "We, however find it impossible to support clauses 14 and 15 of the said Bill as regulations. The provisions of those clauses may be totally destructive of the rights Art.30(1)." 4. In State of Kerala v. Very Rev. Mother Provincial, (1971)1 S.C.J. 641, provisions similar Sec.l8-A of the Private Schools Act and Sec.14-A of the Private Colleges Act came scrutiny as to whether they offend Art.30(1) of the Constitution of India. The relevant of Sec.63 of the Kerala University Act 60 of 1969, which was the subject matter of by the Supreme Court ran as follows: "63. Mother Provincial, (1971)1 S.C.J. 641, provisions similar Sec.l8-A of the Private Schools Act and Sec.14-A of the Private Colleges Act came scrutiny as to whether they offend Art.30(1) of the Constitution of India. The relevant of Sec.63 of the Kerala University Act 60 of 1969, which was the subject matter of by the Supreme Court ran as follows: "63. Power to regulate management of private colleges: (1) Whenever Government satisfied on receipt of a report from the University or upon other information that a situation has arisen in which the working of a private college cannot be carried on for any of the following reasons namely: (a) default in the payment of the salary of the members of the staff of the college period of not less than three months; (b) wilful closing down of the College for a period of not less than one month except in the case of the closure of the College during a vacation; (c) persistent default or refusal to out all or any of the duties imposed on any of the authorities of the College by this Act Statutes or Ordinances or Regulations or Rules or Bye-laws or lawful orders thereunder; and that in the interest of private college it is necessary so to do, Government may, after giving the governing body or managing council, as the case may the manager appointed under sub-sec.(1) of Sec.50 and the education agency, if any, college a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the proposed action and considering the cause, if any, shown, by order, appoint the University to manage the of such private College temporarily for a period not exceeding two years; Provided cases where action is taken under this sub-section otherwise than on a report from University, it shall be consulted before taking such action." This is what the Supreme observed over that provision: "We have no doubt that the provisions of the Act were bona fide and in the interest of education but unfortunately they do affect the administration of these institutions and rob the founders of that right which the Constitution desires be theirs. The provisions, even if salutary cannot stand in the face of the Constitutional guarantee. We do not, therefore, find it necessary to refer to the two reports." Ultimately, was held that Sec.63 of the Kerala University Act 60 of 1969 is ultra vires Art.30(1) Constitution of India. 5. The provisions, even if salutary cannot stand in the face of the Constitutional guarantee. We do not, therefore, find it necessary to refer to the two reports." Ultimately, was held that Sec.63 of the Kerala University Act 60 of 1969 is ultra vires Art.30(1) Constitution of India. 5. However, Mr.P.Sadasivam, learned Special Government Pleader, would submit that provisions, dealt with by the pronouncements, referred to above, are much more rigorous that they severed the connection of the minorities from the educational institutions established and administered by them, once and for all and the present provisions Private Schools Act and the Private Colleges Act do provide sufficient safeguard minorities to get back what they may lose only for a temporary phase. First of all, we able to indulge in such a distinction. If a particular provision of enacted law offends Art.30(1) of the Constitution of India, it is not possible to sustain it on a theory that it is temporary phase. Even otherwise, the provisions dealt with in the pronouncement Supreme Court, which we have adverted to, have only covered situations for temporary phases only. Hence, this distinction has got to be rejected as a puerile one. For the expressed above, the writ petitions, covered in this batch, are allowed and Secs.18 B of the Private Schools Act and Secs. 14-Aand 14-B of the Private Colleges Act are be not applicable to the Educational Institutions of the petitioners. We make no order costs. [Appendix A & B to judgment omitted. - Ed.] Petition allowed.