JUDGMENT The petitioner Shri Gujarati Samaj Indore is a body registered under the Societies Registration Act. It owns and manages number of Colleges at Indore. The names of such Colleges are Science College, Commerce College, Law College and Girls Home-science College, all situated at Indore. These colleges are affiliated to respondent No. 1. The colleges affiliated to respondent No. 1 are regulated by College Code (Statute No. 28). The petitioner contends that sub-clause (a) of Para 17 (1) (i), sub-clause (a) of para 17 (i) (ii) and sub-clause (a) of para 17 (1) (iii) of the College Code are not applicable to the petitioner. This contention is based on the linchpin that according to Art. 30 (1) of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has a right to establish and administer Educational Institutions of its own choice. It is contended that the colleges are particularised above fall within the scope of Art. 30 (1) of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has, therefore, filed this writ petition claiming declaration that they enjoy the immunity from the rigour of the aforesaid provisions of the College Code. According to the petitioner it is open to it to have its own Chairman of the Selection Committee and that the respondent No. 2 has no right to interfere with the fundamental right of the petitioner and cannot nominate any person of his choice to be the Chairman of the Selection Committee. The counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention places reliance on 1988 MPLJ 151 -Islamia Karimia Society Indore v. Devi Ahilya Vishwavidyalaya, Indore;. According to Shri Bagadia the facts as presented and projected in this petition are the same as were considered in the aforesaid judgment, as such the same view should be permitted to prevail as regards the colleges of the petitioner also. As against the aforesaid submissions, Shri B.L. Pavecha learned counsel for the respondent submits that the colleges run and administered by the petitioner cannot be said to be Educational Institution bearing the character of minority and as such Art. 30 (1) is not helpful to the petitioner. Elaborating further, Shri Pavecha submits that once Art. 30 (1) is held to be inapplicable, the petitioner is bound by the aforesaid paragraph of the College Code. I have considered rival contentions with reference to the material placed on record. In my view, the order dated 17.4.84 (Ex. Elaborating further, Shri Pavecha submits that once Art. 30 (1) is held to be inapplicable, the petitioner is bound by the aforesaid paragraph of the College Code. I have considered rival contentions with reference to the material placed on record. In my view, the order dated 17.4.84 (Ex. P2) passed by the Uchcha Anudan Ayog manifestly clinches the issue. I quote relevant portion as under: "It is obvious that Gujarati Samaj constituted of Gujarati speaking people is a linguistic minority in the State of Madhya Pradesh and according to Article 30 they have a right to establish and administer Educational Institutions of their choice." There is no material placed on record by the respondent to take different view from the view contained in Annexure P/2. On the material placed before me and contentions as raised, I find that the colleges run by the petitioner, as particularised above, are minority Institutions and are entitled to have a Chairman of Selection Committee of their own choice. This being so, I find it a fit case to grant declaration that sub-clause (a) of para 17 (1) (i), sub-clause (a) of para 17 (1)(ii) and sub-clause (a) of para 17 (1) (iii) of the Statute No. 28 (college Code) are not applicable to the College owned and managed by the petitioner and as such it has complete freedom to have its own Chairman of the Selection Committee. Shri Pavecha further submits that an appeal against the aforesaid judgment, (Islamia Karimia Society, Indore v. Devi Ahilya Vishwavidyalaya, Indore) (supra) is pending in Supreme Court. I, therefore, find it apt to say in this order that the order passed in this petition shall be in force so long as the aforesaid decision is not reversed. In case it is reversed, the respondents shall be free to invoke the aforesaid paragraph against the Colleges of the petitioner and in that case the petitioner shall be free to contest that question on any ground as may be available if and when occasion arises. This petition thus stands allowed in terms indicated above but without any order as to costs. Security amount shall be refunded to the petitioner after due verification.