G. C. BHARUKA, J. ( 1 ) DR. T. M. A. Pai Foundation, petitioner-2 herein, is a registered Trust. This Trust had established and is administering the Manipal Institution of Technology (petitioner No. 1) which is an Engineering College imparting teaching in various branches of Engineering and is hereinafter referred to as "the College". This college has been declared as a Konkani speaking linguistic minority institution within the meaning of Art. 30 of the Constitution of India. ( 2 ) THE present writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners for quashing the Government Order dated 24-8-1994 (Annexure-A) whereunder the Government has fixed total and course wise intake of the linguistic/religious minority institutions of the State, and for a further direction to the respondents - Director of Technical Education and the Bangalore University to approve the admissions made by the management of the College against NRI quota during the academic year 1994-95 in different courses of Bachelor of Engineering Degree. ( 3 ) SINCE the present and several other writ petitions of the like nature, there involved ascertainment of certain facts like the intake capacity of the colleges and the actual admissions made therein through the CET Cell and by the Managements as also some other connected matters, it was found convenient to get a report on these aspects from the Education Secretary. Accordingly, as directed by me under order dated 1-12-1995 in writ petition Nos. 23729-31 of 1995, learned Education Secretary-II, after giving reasonable opportunity to the college managements of placing on record all the relevant documents and hearing them, as also after taking into account the official records in this connection, has submitted his report dated 11-12-1995 setting out all necessary details required for disposal of this set of writ petitions. College managements have not disputed these basic facts. But so far as the present College is concerned, the Education Secretary has reported that the management has failed to produce the details in respect of all the students admitted by it under the purported NRI Quota. ( 4 ) THE College is affiliated to the respondent-University. The total intake capacity of the college is 825 students. Since in respect of this College the picture relating to actual admissions taken and approved by Government was not emerging clearly, I directed both the petitioners and the Principal Education Secretary to file their affidavited statement in this regard. ( 4 ) THE College is affiliated to the respondent-University. The total intake capacity of the college is 825 students. Since in respect of this College the picture relating to actual admissions taken and approved by Government was not emerging clearly, I directed both the petitioners and the Principal Education Secretary to file their affidavited statement in this regard. ( 5 ) ACCORDING to the affidavit filed by Mr. Rama Rao, Asst. Director of Technical Education on 4-3-1996, against the approved intake of 825 total admissions made in the college during 1994-95 are 747, out of which 644 have been approved by the Director under CET/ Minority free and payment seats. As against 5% NRI quota which works out to 42 approval was to 41. But this affidavit does not spell out as to how many students have been admitted by the College under the alleged NRI quota. As per this affidavit, Director has approved only (644 + 41) = 685 admissions. ( 6 ) SRI J. P. Sharma, Principal Secretary, Education Department in his affidavit filed on 11-3-1996 has given a little different picture of the admissions approved. He has stated that-"2. In the present case, the lists were received in the office of the DTE on 2-2-1995 and the approval of the DTE was conveyed on 8-3-1995 approving only 644 admissions. In the list submitted by the College, in all the courses except one the number of students admitted against NRI quota was found to be more than the intake fixed in Government Order No. ED 41 DTE 94 dated 24th Sept. 1994. Only in the case of Civil Engineering, against the NRI quota of four, only 3 students were admitted, the number being less than the prescribed intake, the names of the students admitted were approved. Further representation by the College was received by the DTE on 17-4-1995 and the DTE on 19-4-1995 approved the admission of 42 students including the three Civil Engineering students approved earlier against the NRI quota in conformity with the intake prescribed for NRI quota. Another additional list of 7 students who were sent by the CET Cell was also approved on 19-4-1995, bringing the total to 693. " ( 7 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, at last on being specifically asked, the petitioners have filed the details of students admitted by them under NRI/ Foreign other category. Another additional list of 7 students who were sent by the CET Cell was also approved on 19-4-1995, bringing the total to 693. " ( 7 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, at last on being specifically asked, the petitioners have filed the details of students admitted by them under NRI/ Foreign other category. As per this list, they have admitted 105 students in this category. ( 8 ) FOR appreciation of the pleas raised by the petitioners, it will be beneficial to refer to various orders and directions of the Supreme Court which have been brought to my notice and to the relevant provisions made under the statutory rules by the State Government with regard to the right of management of the MEIs conducting Engineering Courses to admit students in their institutions. ( 9 ) IN the case of Unnikrishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (W. P. (Civil) No. 607/92 disposed of on 4-2-1993), AIR 1993 SC 2178 , the Supreme Court with an idea to eliminate the discretion in the management altogether in the matter of admission, envisaged a scheme as contained in Paragraph 170 of the report. According to the said scheme, all the seats in professional colleges were to be filled up by governmental agencies - 50% being free seats and the remaining 50% as payment seats. In paragraph-2 of the scheme it was specifically provided that there shall be no quota reserved for the management. ( 10 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, a review petition in No. 483 of 1993 came to be filed in the said Unnikrishnan's case, which was disposed of by the Supreme Court on 4-5-1993 by modifying the aforesaid scheme the following was the order:"l. The Scheme framed by this Court in its judgment dated Feb. 4, 1993 in writ petition (Civil) No. 607 of 1992 and connected matters is modified to the following extent only. 2 It shall be open to the professional college to admit Non-Resident Indian students to the extent of only five per cent of their total intake for a given year. By way of illustration if the permitted intake of a professional college is 100 for a given year, 50 seats out of it will be free seats and other 50 seats will be seats on payment. The five seats for Non-Resident Indian students shall be out of the 50 payment seats. By way of illustration if the permitted intake of a professional college is 100 for a given year, 50 seats out of it will be free seats and other 50 seats will be seats on payment. The five seats for Non-Resident Indian students shall be out of the 50 payment seats. The Non- Resident Indian students shall be admitted on the basis of merit. But in view of the different backgrounds they come from, it is for the management of the college concerned to judge the merit of these candidates, having regard to the relevant factors. The fees payable by such students shall be as may be prescribed by the Committee referred to in clause (6) of the Scheme. 3 The Non-Resident Indian students admitted against these 5 seats need not however take the entrance examination, if any, prescribed for admission to that course. It is made clear that the above provision does not preclude the Non-Resident Indian students from seeking admission either to free seats or payment seats along with others on the basis common to all. The observations made in Mohini Jain's case ( AIR 1992 SC 1858 ) in relation to Non-Resident Indian students will stand modified to the above extent. 4 Subject to the above, all the review petitions and IAs are dismissed. No costs. " ( 11 ) BY a subsequent order dated 7-10-1993 reported in (1993) 4 SCC 276 : ( AIR 1994 SC 13 ), the Supreme Court raised the quota of 5% as fixed by it by modification of the Scheme in Unnikrishnan's case noticed above to 15% restricting it to the academic year 1993-94 only. Paragraph 23 (of SCC) : (Para 22 of AIR) of the order which is relevant for the present purpose reads as under:"then remains the question whether any quota is to be allotted for foreign students for this year - it being an year of transition and adjustment - in view of the Government of India's orders referred to above permitting admission of foreign students to the extent of as much as 50%. Taking into account all the facts and circumstances and having regard to time that has already elapsed and the constriction of time, we are of the opinion that it would be proper to permit the private professional colleges to admit NRIs and foreign students upto a maximum extent of 15% of the intake capacity for this year. In other words, provision made for NRIs to the extent of 5% in the order May 14, 1993 in Review Petitions 482 of 1993 etc. shall be raised to 15% and shall be availablie both for NRIs as well as foreign students. The basis of selection and admission for these NRIs and foreign students shall be the same as indicated in our order dated May 14, 1993 in Review Petition Nos. 482 of 1993 etc. In case, however, NRIs foreign students are not available to fill up all the seats within the said 15% meant for them, it shall be open for the management to admit other students within the said quota. It will not be necessary that the students admitted against the said 15% quota should be the allottees from the Government or that they should have appeared for the joint entrance examination, if any, held by the Government or authority concerned. It is made clear that this is a special provision made only for this year, being an year of transition. " ( 12 ) IN the case of Shahal H. Musaliar v. State of Kerala, (1993) 4 SCC 112 (Para 2), it has been clarified by the Supreme Court that in Unnikrishnan's case no order or directions were made by their Lordships about minority educational institutions (in short, MEIs ). Accordingly in respect of minority institutions from Karnataka who were the petitioners before the Supreme Court in W. P. Nos. 350 and 355 of 1993, the following agreed order was passed on 14-5-1993. "l. We have heard Shri Soli J. Sorabjee, learned senior counsel for the petitioners in these two writ, petitions. Issue Rule. 2. There will be an interim order in the following terms: (i) Fifty per cent of the total intake in the petitioner's educational institutions shall be permitted to be filled up by candidates selected by the agencies of the State Government on the basis of a competitive examination/ test. Issue Rule. 2. There will be an interim order in the following terms: (i) Fifty per cent of the total intake in the petitioner's educational institutions shall be permitted to be filled up by candidates selected by the agencies of the State Government on the basis of a competitive examination/ test. The candidates so selected and admitted shall pay scales of fee as applicable to this class of students as determined by the State Government from time to time. (ii) The remaining fifty per cent of the intake may be regulated by the petitioners to admit candidates belonging to the particular religious or linguistic minority. However, the selection shall be made strictly on the basis of merit amongst the candidates seeking admission to the institutions. Such merit shall be determined on the basis of the academic performance at the qualifying examination; or on the basis of any objective test that the institution might itself apply to determine such relative and competing merits; or on the basis of performance of the results of the selection tests that the State Government may itself hold for selecting candidates for admission to technical colleges in the State. It is optional for the petitioners to adopt any one of these three modes and apply it uniformally. Candidates so selected on the basis of merit amongst the minorities shall, however, abide by such condition in the matter of payment of tuition and other fee as may be permitted by the State Government. 3 It is made clear that this order is made on the assumption that the petitioners are minority institutions. It is open to the respondents to question this status claimed by the petitioners. 4 This order shall, however, not estop the petitioners from urging all other contentions raised in the writ petitions, as, indeed, this interim interlocutory order is made on the consent of the petitioners and without prejudice to all the contentions. " ( 13 ) THE above order passed in relations to MEIs was subsequently modified by the order dated 18-8-1993 in Shahal H. Musaliar's case ( 1993 (4) SCC 112 ) (supra ). The modification was applicable to all MEIs of the State of Karnataka and it was to the following effect :"17. In all other cases, except those mentioned specifically hereinafter, the order made by this Court on May 14, 1993 in W. P. Nos. The modification was applicable to all MEIs of the State of Karnataka and it was to the following effect :"17. In all other cases, except those mentioned specifically hereinafter, the order made by this Court on May 14, 1993 in W. P. Nos. 355 of 1993 and 350 of 1993 shall be the order, though not necessarily with their consent with the following modifications (which modifications shall apply even in the cases of W. P. Nos. 350 and 355 of 1993 ). The modifications are the following, numbered as paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 in continuation of the said order :" (5) In continuation of para (3) it is made further clear that whether any of the petitioner-institutions is a MEI or not is a matter for the Government to verify and determine. We do not - more particularly at this stage - make any pronouncement in that behalf. This order shall be applicable only to those institutions which are found to be MEIs on verification by the Government and not to those who are not found to be MEIs on such verification. (6) The 50% seats to be filled up by candidates selected by the agencies of the State Government on the basis of a competitive examination/ test as well as the remaining 50% seats to be filled in accordance with clause (ii) of para (2) of the said order shall be equally distributed between free seats and payment seats. In other words, out of the 50% seats to be filled up by Government, half will be payment seats and half will be free seats. Similarly, out of the 50% of the seats to be filled up by the Management in accordance with para 2 (ii) of the said order, half shall be payment seats and the other half free seats. The NRIs, if any admitted to an extent not exceeding 5% of the total seats shall be out of the payment seats to be filled under para 2 (ii ). (7) After completing the admissions each of the colleges shall submit to the competent authority, to the University to which it is affiliated and to the Government concerned statements containing full particulars of the students admitted under clause (ii) of para (2) of this order. Such statements shall contain as full a particulars as possible. (7) After completing the admissions each of the colleges shall submit to the competent authority, to the University to which it is affiliated and to the Government concerned statements containing full particulars of the students admitted under clause (ii) of para (2) of this order. Such statements shall contain as full a particulars as possible. The authorities to which the statements are submitted shall verify the correctness of the statements and, if they find any iregularity, they shall call upon the college concerned to rectify the same. They shall also bring and such violation to the notice of this Court by way of an interlocutory application. Any such irregularity if proved may entail serious consequences. (Emphasis supplied) ( 14 ) SUBSEQUENTLY the Supreme Court in its order dated 5-4-1994 passed in the writ petition filed by the petitioner and the connected cases, (1994) 2 SCC 734 : ( AIR 1994 SC 2372 ), had made the following clarification in paragraph 7 of the judgment. "7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and we are of the view that except for Minority Educational Institutions in Kerala which are governed by the terms of the agreements with the Government of Kerala, the directions given by this Court with regard to admissions for the academic session 1993 can continue and govern admissions for the next academic session commencing in 1994. " ( 15 ) THE rules that emerge from the orders passed by the Supreme Court for admission of students in the MEIs can now be summarised thus : (i) 50 per cent. of the total intake of the institution are to be filled through the agencies of the State Government on the basis of a competitive examination/test; (ii) The remaining 50 per cent. of the intake is to be filled by the management of the MEIs from amongst students belonging to a particular religious or linguistic minority based on their inter se merits; (iii) Half of the seats to be so filled both by the Governmental agencies as also the management shall be free seats and the remaining half will be payment seats; and (iv) Out of 25 per cent. payment seats to be filled by management, 5 per cent. of the total intake can be from amongst non-Indian residents (in short 'the NRIs' ). payment seats to be filled by management, 5 per cent. of the total intake can be from amongst non-Indian residents (in short 'the NRIs' ). ( 16 ) ON a plain reading of the orders or directions issued by the Supreme Court, as noticed above, it does not appear that the Supreme Court, like in the non-MEIs had intended to permit the management of MEIs as well to admit the students from amongst resident Indians who do not belong to the respective religious or linguistic minority to which the institution belongs. It is also not very clear as to whether the NRIs to be admitted by the MEIs should belong only to a particular minority class or the said NRIs may belong to other classes as well. ( 17 ) THESE issues have become pertinent in the facts of the present case, because as I find from the list submitted by the management, students who are claimed to have been admitted under the purported NRI quota are by and large non-Konkani speaking. ( 18 ) THE State Government purporting to act in compliance with the rules so laid down by the Supreme Court under the impugned Order dated 24-8-1994 in No. ED 41 DTE 94 (2), fixed the course-wise number of seats for admission in MEIs of the State setting out the total intake of the Colleges and number of seats which were to be filled up by the Government and the Management respectively under free and payment categories. The said order has been placed at Annexure- A to the present writ petitions. ( 19 ) IN respect of the petitioner-College the details set out are to the following effect : @@ Name of the College Coursesintake fixed for the year Govt. Quota Management Quotafree Seatpayment Seatfree Seatpayment Seat 1234567 Manipal Institute of Technology, Manipal1. Civil Engineering 80202020082. Mechanical"135343434133. Electrical and Electronics135343434134. Electronics and Communication135343434135. Computer Science135343434136. Industrial Production05514141405 1234567 7. Chemical Engg. 040101010048. Architecture050131213059. Printing Technology0300807080310. Bio-Medical Engg. 03008070803 Total825 (sic)20920620980 @@ ( 20 ) FROM the above table, it is conspicuous that the Government had not allotted any NRI quota. Moreover, out of total intake of 825, though 415 was allocated against Government quota, against management quota it was shown only 289, thus no provision was made for filling the remaining 121 seats. No convincing reply has been put forward on behalf of the Government for doing so. Moreover, out of total intake of 825, though 415 was allocated against Government quota, against management quota it was shown only 289, thus no provision was made for filling the remaining 121 seats. No convincing reply has been put forward on behalf of the Government for doing so. ( 21 ) ANYHOW, at a subsequent stage, the Government came out with another order being Government Order No. FD 41 DTE 94 (1), dated 15-9-1994 refixing the Government and Management seats bringing the allocations in conformity with the rules laid down by the Court. In respect of the petitioner-College, it was to the following effect:name of College Courses Intake fixed for the year 94-95 Government Quota Management Quotanri And others Free Seatpayment Seatfree Seat Payment Seatminority students 12345678 Manipal Institute of Technolog, Manipal 1. Civil Engineering 802020201642. Mechanical Engineering1353434342673. Electrical and Electronics 1353434342774. Electronics and Communic-ation 1353434342675. Computer Science 1353434342776. Industrial Production0551414141037. Chemical Engg. 0401010100828. Architecture 0501312130939. Printing Technology 03007080806110. Bio-Medical Engg. 030070808061 Total::825206 (sic)20720916142 ( 22 ) SRI J. P. Sharma, the Principal Secretary to Government of Karnataka, Education Department, in his afiidavit filed on 11-3-1996 though has conveniently stated that in the Government Order dated 24-8-1994 (Annexure-A) the intake of NRI quota was not mentioned, but he has omitted to justify the allocations of seats made thereunder which on its very face was contrary to the Supreme Court Orders quoted in extenso hereinbefore. He has merely tried to cover up the issue by saying that it was so done to avoid delay in the admission process of students by the CET. According to him, by the subsequent Government Order dated 15-9-1994, the NRI quota as well was fixed as per the order of the Supreme Court. According to him, as per the quota so fixed, the management could have admitted only 42 students against NRI quota and all admissions made by the College over and above 42 such admissions have not been approved. ( 23 ) ON the other hand, it has been contended on behalf of the petitioner-Management that as per Rule l2-B of the Karnataka Selection of Candidates for Admission to Engineering, Medical and Dental Courses Rules, 1993 (in short, Selection Rules) as substituted by Notification 9-8-1994, they were entitled to admit students upto 15 per cent of their intake against NRI quota. This Rule was again substituted by another Notification dated 15-9-1994 restricting the NRI quota in the case of Engineering cases to 5 per cent. of their intake. But the question is whether the managements of minority institutions can at all take benefit of this rule particularly in view of the specific order passed by the Supreme Court in relation to minority institutions restricting the NRI quota only to 5 per cent. ( 24 ) THE Selection Rules have been framed under the provisions of the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1984 (in short, 'the Act'. Section 2 (g) of the Act defines 'minority Educational Institutions' to mean educational institutions established and administered by minorities as provided under Article 30 of the Constitution of India. Section 10 of the Act provides for application of the Act to the minority institutions, and it reads as under :"nothing in this Act or the Rules or orders made thereunder shall apply to any minority educational institution to the extent to which they are inconsistent with the rights guaranteed under Article 30 of the Constitution of India. ( 25 ) IN the writ petition filed by the present petitioner itself, (sic) (1993) 4 SCC 286 , it has been observed by the Supreme Court that in St. Stephen's College v. University of Delhi (1992) 1 SCC 558 : ( AIR 1992 SC 1630 ), it has been held by a Constitution Bench of the Court that it is not permissible for the State or the affiliating University to provide that the admission to minority educational institutions should also be on the basis of merit as determined in a joint/common entrance test and that the Minority Educational Institution too must draw its students from the common pool on the basis of merit. But their Lordships after observing that "we entertain serious reservations with respect to the said holding" have referred the case to a larger Bench. The questions as reframed and pending consideration before the Seven Judges Bench are the following (see AIR 1995 SC 2431 , Pr. 5):" (1) (a) Where a religious or linguistic minority in State 'a' established an educational institution in the said State, can the member of that religious/linguistic group in State 'b' claim rights flowing from Art. 30 (1) of the Constitution of India in respect of the above said educational institution established in State 'a'? 5):" (1) (a) Where a religious or linguistic minority in State 'a' established an educational institution in the said State, can the member of that religious/linguistic group in State 'b' claim rights flowing from Art. 30 (1) of the Constitution of India in respect of the above said educational institution established in State 'a'? (b) Whether it would be correct to say that only the members of that minority residing in State 'a' will be treated as the members of the minority vis-a-vis such institution? (2) What are the indicia for treating an educational institution as a minority education? Would an institution be regarded as a minority educational institution only because it was established by a person (s) belonging to a religious or linguistic minority or it is being administered by a person (s) belonging to a religious or linguistic minority? (3) Whether the minority's right to establish and administer educationals institutions of their choice will include the procedure and the method of admission and selection of a student? (4) Whether the admission of students to minority educational institution, whether aided or unaided, can be regulated by the State Govt. or by the University to which the Institution is affiliated? (5) Whether the decision of this Court in St. Stephens is right in saying that Article 30 clothes a minority educational institution with the power to admit students by adopting its own method of selection and that the State or the affiliated University has the power to regulate admission of students to such minority educational institution even while permitting the minority educational institution to admit students belonging to the relevant minority to the extent of 50% of intake capacity. We make it clear that the percentage decided in St. Stephens case will equally be opened for re-consideration. (6) What is meant by the expression 'religion' in Article 30 (1)? Can the followers of a sect or denomination of a particular religion claim protection under Article 30 (1) on the basis that they constitute a minority in the State even though the followers of that religion are in majority in that State? (7) What is meant by the expression 'language' in Article 30 (1)? Does it include a language which is not included in the Eighth Schedule to the Constitution?" ( 26 ) THEREFORE, though the correctness of the law declared in the said St. (7) What is meant by the expression 'language' in Article 30 (1)? Does it include a language which is not included in the Eighth Schedule to the Constitution?" ( 26 ) THEREFORE, though the correctness of the law declared in the said St. Stephen's College is now shrouded by doubts, nonetheless as on date it remains to be "the law declared" in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution. Therefore in view of Section 10 of the Act, the scheme envisaged under the Admission Rules cannot be applied to minority educational institutions. It is for this reason that the right of either the Government or its agencies as also the management of the MEIs to admit students is exclusively govern- ed by the orders passed by the Supreme Court in this relation from time to time. The present petitioners are themselves petitioners before the Supreme Court and as such they are fully aware about the legal implications surrounding the issue of their right of admission to their college. As such, it is not permissible on their part to assert that they are entitled to avail the best out of the Supreme Court order as also the Statutory Rules. Their acts and the supporting pleas both defy their bona fide. ( 27 ) THE Principal Secretary in his above referred affidavit has further admitted that the violation committed by the college in admitting students in excess of its NRI quota had come to their notice on 16-9-1994 through a telegram sent by the college in response to the telegram of the Director of Technical Education. It has further been admitted that keeping in view the order of the Supreme Court dated 14-5-1993 and l8-8-1993, see (1993) 4 SCC 112 ; the violations made by the petitioner institution should have been brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. But the concerned authorities for one or the other reason, have miserably failed to comply with the said direction of the Apex Court. ( 28 ) KEEPING in view the aforesaid facts and the orders passed by the Supreme Court, in my opinion, the violations, if any, committed by the minority institutions pertaining to admission of the students should be brought to the notice of the Apex Court by an interlocutory application by the authorities concerned for appropriate orders and actions. ( 28 ) KEEPING in view the aforesaid facts and the orders passed by the Supreme Court, in my opinion, the violations, if any, committed by the minority institutions pertaining to admission of the students should be brought to the notice of the Apex Court by an interlocutory application by the authorities concerned for appropriate orders and actions. I am of the view that it is not permissible for this Court to pass any order in the facts and circumstances of the, present case. ( 29 ) WRIT Petitions are accordingly dismissed with liberty to the parties to seek their appropriate remedies before the Apex Court. Petitions dismissed. --- *** --- .