M. F. SALDANHA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned Advocates. The petitioners learned Advocate has submitted that this is a case in which the petitioners are running an old established institution which conforms to all the rules, regulations and requirements. He states that the institution has a primary school, a high school and has applied for permission to start ,a Pre-University College. The solitary ground on which the formal approval of the high school is being refused is that the petitioner institution which is a minority institution has not converted the medium of instruction in standards 1 to 4 from English to Kannada. Petitioners learned advocate submits that quite apart from the fact that the petitioners claim to be a minority institution, that it is unconstitutional for any State to impose such a condition particularly where the demand from the parents of the children is that the medium of instruction should either be their mother tongue or some other language. The learned Government advocate submitted that the authorities do not concede the petitioners claim to be a minority institution but that issue has nothing to do with the dispute that is the subject-matter of this petition. If the petitioners in fact are a minority institution or if they fulfil the requisite criteria, it is open to them to claim that status before the authorities on satisfying them. That however is in no way in issue before me. ( 2 ) THIS Court has had occasion to point out in the course of hearing several similar petitions that merely because the same or similar issues are pending before the Full Bench and before the Supreme Court that it s not open to the State Government to unilaterally thrust a certain policy on these institutions if they are otherwise entitled by virtue of constitutional guarantees and freedoms to teach in a medium of instruction other than the regional language. I have however had occasion to observe while deciding those cases that it is perfectly reasonable and perfectly permissible. I have however had occasion to observe while deciding those cases that it is perfectly reasonable and perfectly permissible. Since the institutions are located in the State, that the regional language must be made a compulsory subject and not an optional one, that special provision shall be made for ensuring that it is not only well-studied, that the students take it seriously and show due competence in that subject and further more that it be given pride of place because irrespective of other considerations, knowledge of the regional language is not only useful but is essential. That would not however give the State the authority to issue a blanket directive that all primary schools must necessarily use the regional language as the medium of instruction. This Court has had cases earlier of different linguistic or religious minorities who have pointed out that even if one goes by the formula of the childrens' mother-tongue, that they would be entitled to be educated in that language if they so desire. Similarly, it has been demonstrated that if the medium of instruction at the vital stage viz. , at the commencement of the education is the regional language, that it is not easy nor is it genuinely feasible to thereafter change over and it has also been demonstrated that as far as higher education and professional education is concerned, that students who have been forced to study only in the regional language are in fact facing severe handicaps. One of the instances demonstrated is with regard to the professional courses where students have to appear for the common All India entrance test. Another set of cases that come up before this court in respect of students whose parents are employed in various companies or Central Government organisations and whose jobs are transferable and in whose case it becomes impossible to continue the education in another State or another part of the country if the medium of instruction has been in a regional language in a particular State. These are serious issues on which it is the students and their parents who have the right and the freedom to decide. These are serious issues on which it is the students and their parents who have the right and the freedom to decide. ( 3 ) THE solitary ground on which the permission has been refused to the petitioners has been on the basis of the language policy and in view of this objection being upheld to be untenable, the petitioners would be entitled to make a formal application which they are required to do by virtue of the provisions of the karnataka Education Act on 1-6-1995. The petitioners will be entitled to rely on the background of this case namely the fact that they had applied in good time and the authorities shall take into account all that is pointed out by them including the observations made by this Court in this and other similar petitions, appropriate orders shall be passed on the application and communicated to the petitioners and it is further directed in keeping with the provisions of that Act, that no coercive steps shall be taken against them until the application is decided. In view of the fact that the petitioners applications have been pending for a long time and that this Court has struck down the solitary ground on which the permission was earlier refused, it is a mere formality which the respondents authorities shall complete within an outer limit of three months from today. ( 4 ) THE petition accordingly succeeds. Rule is made absolute to this extent. No order as to costs. As a necessary consequence, the earlier orders passed vide Annexures-H and H-1 are quashed. Learned Government Advocate to communicate Court's directions to the respondents. --- *** --- .