Judgment :- The plaintiff in O.S. No. 546 of 1977 on the file of District Munsif's Court, Madurai, has preferred this Second Appeal against the reversing judgment of the Lower Appellate Court in A. S. No. 52 of 1981, dismissing the suit. 2. The suit is against the Educational Authorities of the Government and is for declaration that the plaintiff's school is a minority school within the meaning of Article 30 of the Constitution of India and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants-respondents from enforcing the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 and its Rules against the plaintiff's School. The trial Court, though did not grant the injunction relief prayed for, granted the declaration relief prayed for. But the Lower Appellate Court, in the appeal preferred by the defendants, dismissed the suit in entirety. 3. The only ground on which the Lower Appellate Court did not grant the declaration prayed for is that the plaintiff is only a single Christian individual running the school in question, the school also having been founded only by a single Chritian Woman, Packiammal. Relying on the following passage in Rajershi Memorial Basic Training School v. State of Kerala, 1973 AIR(Kerala) 87, viz., "The mere fact that the school was founded by a person belonging to a particular religious persuasion is not at all conclusive on this matter. The institution must be shown to be one established and administered by or on behalf of the particular minority community" * , the Lower Appellate Court appears to have held that unless a group of minority community people join together and found and administer a school, the said school cannot be termed a minority school. It also observes thus (para 4) :- "..................there was no evidence placed before the Court to show that the local church or the parishioners attached to the church or the Christian Community were in any manner associated with the founding of the School or its day-to-day subsequent administration." * 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the abovesaid reasoning of the Lower Appellate Court is grossly erroneous since there is no such stipulation that the school should necessarily be established and administered by a group of minority community people for it to get the minority status within the meaning of Article 30 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the abovesaid reasoning of the Lower Appellate Court is grossly erroneous since there is no such stipulation that the school should necessarily be established and administered by a group of minority community people for it to get the minority status within the meaning of Article 30 of the Constitution of India. He contends that even if a single minority individual establishes and administers a school for the benefit of the minority community, it would be a minority school within the meaning of Article 30 of the Constitution of India. In the present case, admittedly the abovesaid school was founded in 1949 by the abovesaid Packiammal a Christian. It is also in evidence that the said Packiammal was a Higher Grade Teacher as shown by Ex. A-6 and she was related to the plaintiff Selvaraj, as brother's wife. Pursuant to application dated 13-9-960 from the said Packiammal herself and pursuant to the letter dated 10-10-1960 from the plaintiff, the District Educational Officer, Madurai District has approved the transfer of Management of the abovesaid school from the said Packiammal to the plaintiff with effect from 10-9-1960, as shown by Ex. A-20. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant points out that the interpretation put by the Lower Appellate Court on the abovesaid passage appearing in 1973 AIR(Ker) 87 (supra) is absolutely wrong, particularly in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. Mother Provincial. Where the relevant observation is as follows (at p. 2082 of AIR) :- "It matters not if a Single Philanthorpic Individual with his own means, founds the institution or the community at large contributes the funds. The position in law is the same and the intention in either case must be to found an institution for the benefit of a minority community by a member of that community." (Emphasis supplied) 6. The above proposition is also accepted by the learned Additional Government Pleader (C.S.) appearing for the respondents. But, all that he submits is that the school is not managed or administered by the plaintiff as a minority school. He also points out that while the trial Court found that the abovesaid school was started by a Christian for the benefit of the Christian community residing at Bibikulam, Narimedu, there is no such finding by the lower appellate Court. He also points out that while the trial Court found that the abovesaid school was started by a Christian for the benefit of the Christian community residing at Bibikulam, Narimedu, there is no such finding by the lower appellate Court. He also relies on the decision in A. P. Christian Medical Education Society v. Government of A. P., where it has been held that if the claim that the institution is a mere cloak or pretension and real motive is business adventure, protection under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India, is not available. He also relies on an unreported judgment dated 9-8-1995 of this Court in Nirmal High School, Ayanavaram v. Devapiriam Henry Memorial Middle School, Ayanavaram, Madras-23, (S.A. No. 1375 of 1990 and W.P. No. 10848 of 1989), which followed (supra), and held as follows :- "On the facts and circumstances of the case that the appellant-institution cannot be said to either satisfy or substantiate in law that it is a minority institution". (Emphasis supplied) 7. I have considered the rival submissions. It is settled law that for claiming the minority status under Article 30 of the Constitution of India, the institution must be established and administered by a minority community and the institution must have been founded for the benefit of a minority community. This is also made clear in the abovesaid. The further observation there is, "it matters not whether a single minority individual founds the institution out of his own funds or the minority community at large or a group of Sucn persons founds the institution with their funds. The position in law is the same in either case." The lower appellate Court has certainly wrongly interpreted the above referred to decision in 1973 AIR(Kerala) 87 (supra). Even Section 2 (3) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 defines "educational agency" thus:- "Educational agency in relation to any minority school, means any person who, or body of persons which has established and is administering or proposes to establish and administer such minority school." (Emphasis supplied) Even this also indicates that Minority school could be founded and run by a single person belonging to a minority community. 8. 8. Even the lower appellate Court finds as follows :- "The school in question was founded in 1949 by one Packiammal, no doubt a Christian." That apart, though there is no specific finding by the lower appellate Court, that initially the abovesaid Packiammal and later the plaintiff, who is also a Christian, was managing the institution right through, it is clearly borne out by several documents like Exs. A.7 to A. 30, which are documents pertaining to the period from 1949 to 1977, when the suit was filed. In particular, Ex. A.22 dated, 30-11-1949 is page No.1 of the Visitors' book of the school, and Ex. A. 23 dated, 25-4-1979 is page 15 of the said Visitors' book, Ex. A. 25, dated 29-4-1974 is the Circular for 25th Annual Celebration of the plaintiff's School, Ex. A.27, dated 14-12-1975 is the Certificate issued by the District Educational Officer to the plaintiff. Ex. A. 16 is a hand-bill showing the inauguration of the said school on 1-6-1949, Ex. A. 17 is the attendance register of the school, maintained by the plaintiff and Ex. A. 18 is the admission register of the school maintained by the plaintiff. The above referred to Ex. A. 20, dated 13- 10-1960 is the order of the transfer of management from the abovesaid Packiammal to the plaintiff. All these documents clearly show that originally Packiammal was managing the school and thereafter the plaintiff has been managing the school. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of learned counsel for the respondents that the school was not administered by a person belonging to a minority community. The further contention of the said counsel is, even though the abovesaid Packiammal or the plaintiff is a Christian, it cannot be said that they have been running the institution as a person belonging to a minority community. There is absolutely no merit in this contention. It is enough if the school is administered by a person belonging to a minority community, for example, a Christian as in the present case. It is not necessary that he or she should also proclaim that he or she is running the institution as a person belonging to a minority community. 9. The abovesaid or the unreported judgment dated 9-8-1995 in S.A. No. 1375 of ]990 referred to supra has no application to the present case. It is not necessary that he or she should also proclaim that he or she is running the institution as a person belonging to a minority community. 9. The abovesaid or the unreported judgment dated 9-8-1995 in S.A. No. 1375 of ]990 referred to supra has no application to the present case. In supra) the claim for minority status was made by a purchaser of the school and it was also found, as of fact, that the institution was started as business venture with a view to make money from gullible individuals anxious to obtain admission to professional colleges. That is why it was held that the Court has right to pierce the 'minority veil' and to go behind the claim that the institution was a minority institution and investigate and satisfy itself whether the claim was well-founded or not. Such a question does not at all arise in the present case, as there was no such plea or proof. Likewise the unreported judgment referred to supra also is not applicable to the present case. As already pointed out the said unreported judgment itself concludes thus :- "....................on the facts and circumstances of the case that the appellant-institution cannot be said to either satisfy or substantiate in law that it is a minority institution which had been established and administered to serve or further promote the interests of the minority community. Whatever may be the genetical origin of the institution, the fact remains that P.W. 1 himself has purchased the institution and has chosen to name it after his deceased son and administered it as his private property." (Emphasis supplied) * Emphasis not supplied in original. .......Ed.) 10. The contention that the finding of the trial Court that the present School was established for the benefit of the Christian community residing at Bibikulam, Narimedu, cannot be sustained, has also no merit. The relevant plea in the plaint inter alia is : "The founder felt that it was necessary to bring up the Christian children in the faith of the Protestant Christian Mission and uplift and benefit of the Minority Christian Children in Pibikulam, Narimedu, Madurai." * Though this allegation is denied in the written statement, there is ample evidence to show that the institution was established and run for the said benefit, like Exs. A.16, A.7 to A15, X-2 and X-3, depositions of P.Ws. 2 and 4 and Exs. A.16, A.7 to A15, X-2 and X-3, depositions of P.Ws. 2 and 4 and Exs. A-24 and A-23, as also found by the trial Court. 11. The net result is, the judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court in A.S. No. 52 of 1981 are set aside and the judgment and decree of the trial Court are restored and the second Appeal is allowed with costs throughout. Consequently C.M.P. Nos. 4780 to 4782 of 1986 are dismissed. Appeal allowed.