In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 16.11.90 of the Secretary (Education), Govt of Manipur, approving shifting of Leisan Tampak Aided JB School from Leisan Tampak Churachandpur to Songpi Village, Churachandpur. 2. The facts briefly are that the inhabitants of Leisan Tampak Hill, Village including the petitioners are Christians by religion. They established Leisan. Tampak JB School for providing education to their children residing in hill villages, namely Leisan Tampak including its Machets/sub-villages, Phaikot, M. Bhungmuol, G. Songgel, Patijang, C. Molphei and Molcham Khengmuol within the district of Churachandpur. After establishing the said school, the Managing Committee of the school has been administering the same with the aid received from the State Govt, some contributions from the villagers and donations received from the local public. The Chairman of the earlier Managing Committee of the said school made a request to the Director of Education (S), Govt of Manipur to shift the said school to Songpi Village. But the said request was examined and rejected by the Director of Education (S), Govt of Manipur in his communication dated 26.7.89 to the District Education Officer, Churachandpur District. Notwith­standing the said communication of the Director of Education (S), Govt of Manipur, the District Education Officer, Churachandpur, inspected the aforesaid school on 16.11.89 for the purpose of finding out as to whether the said school should be shifted to Songpi Village and submitted a report dated 20.11.89 to the Director of Education (S), Govt of Manipur in which he pointed out that there was only one table and one desk in the school; and that the school building was in a very bad shape; and that the teachers were not found in the school; and that in the interest of public, the school should be shifted to Songpi Village. On. the basis of the said report dated 20.11.89, the Director of Education (S), Govt of Manipur wrote to the Secretary (Education) Govt. of Manipur in his letter dated 25.9.90 to convey the approval of the Govt to the proposal of shifting of the said school from Leisan Tampak to Songpi Village and by the order dated 16.10.90, the Secretary (Education), Govt of Manipur, conveyed the approval of the Govt for shifting of the said school from Leisan Tampak to Songpi Village of Churachandpur District. 3; Mr. 3; Mr. A Nilamani Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the District Education Officer, Churachandpur, visited the school on 16.11.89, the school was closed. He referred to the notice dated 25.10.89 issued by the then Secretary of the School Managing Committee, a copy of which has been annexed to this writ petition as Annexure A/2, in which it was notified that the school will remain closed for 20 days with effect from 26.10.89 to 16.11.89 on account of harvesting holiday; and that all teachers and students should attend the school regularly with effect from 17.11.89. He further stated that as the school was closed during the aforesaid period from 26.10.89 to 16.11.89, there were obviously no teachers or students in the school on 16.11.89 when the District Education Officer, Churchandpur District, visited the school. Referring to the averments made in the writ petition, Mr. Nilamani Singh submitted that the tables and desks of the school had been sent to the nearby local Church for facilitating service there and for the Convenience of Christians visiting the Church. Hence it was not factually correct that the school was not functioning properly; and that there were no tables, desks and other facilities; and that there were no teachers or students attending the school regularly. He further submitted that though on an earlier occasion, the Chairman of the Managing Committee had requested for shifting of the school, the said request had been turned down by the Director of Education (S), Govt of Manipur, after examination of the same and the present Managing Committtee has not made such request for shifting of the school from Leisan Tampak to Songpi Village in view of the fact that such shifting of the school will deprive the local children in and around Leisan Tampak Hill Villages of primary education. He pointed out that the school was a minority educational institution; and that under the provisions of Article 30 (I) of the Constitution, fundamental right has been guaranteed to religious minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. According to Mr. Nilamani Singh such right to establish and administer educational institution of their choice would include their right to choose the place where the educational institution would be established and the State Govt would infringe the said fundamental right by directing shifting of the said school from Leisan Tampak to Songpi Village. According to Mr. Nilamani Singh such right to establish and administer educational institution of their choice would include their right to choose the place where the educational institution would be established and the State Govt would infringe the said fundamental right by directing shifting of the said school from Leisan Tampak to Songpi Village. He cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Frank Anthony Public School Employees Association vs. Union of India & others, (1986) 4 SCC 707 in support of his aforesaid submission. Mr. Nilamani Singh further contended that the State Govt has no authority whatsoever under the law to interfere with the administration of the aforesaid school by directing shifting of the said school to another village and it is settled position of law that every act done by the Govt or by its officers must, if it is to operate to the prejudice of any person, be supported by some legislative authority (Bennet Coleman & Co Ltd & others vs. Union of India & others, AIR 1973 SC 106 ). 4. Mr. Jagatchandra Singh, on the other hand, relied on the averments made in the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent Nos 1 to 5 and stated that the school was Govt Aided School; and that as per grant-in-aid rules, the school should have not less than 75 students. But the inspection report of the District Education Officer, Churachandpur, dated 20.11.89 did not show that there were sufficient number of students available in the school. The said report of the District Education Officer further indicated that the school did not have even thatch roofing, proper walls and adequate furniture. According to Mr. Jagatchandra Singh, since the school located at Leisan Tampak Hill Village did not provide the required facilities for education, the Govt was competent to shift the location of the said school in the interest of general public, particularly, when it is providing grants-in-aid to that school. He further contended that if the direction/instruction were not followed, under the rules governing grants-in-aid to the schools in Manipur the Govt could withdraw the grants-in-aid to that school. He stated that for these reasons the impugned order was passed by the Secretary (Education), Govt of Manipur, approving the shifting of the school from Leisan Tampak to Songpi Village. 5. He further contended that if the direction/instruction were not followed, under the rules governing grants-in-aid to the schools in Manipur the Govt could withdraw the grants-in-aid to that school. He stated that for these reasons the impugned order was passed by the Secretary (Education), Govt of Manipur, approving the shifting of the school from Leisan Tampak to Songpi Village. 5. Under Article 30 (1) of the Constitution, all minorities, whether based on religion or language, have the right to establish and administer educational insti­tutions of their choice. In the case of Frank Anthony Public School Employees Association vs. Union of India (supra), the Supreme Court after discussing the subject at length and in particular the decision of the Apex Court in re Kerala Education Bill 1957, AIR 1958 SC 956 , has held that one thing is clear, it is this that the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 30 (1) cannot be surrendered, wholly or partly, and the authorities cannot make the grant of aid conditional on the surrender of a part of the fundamental right. Thus the authorities cannot compel a religious or linguistic minority community to surrender a part of its fundamental right by imposing any particular condition for grant of aid to the educational institution established and administered by the minority community. The expression 'of their choice' in Article 30 (1) of the Constitution implies that the minority community based on religion or language would have a great amount of freedom with regard to establishment of educational institution and its administration and such freedom, in my considered opinion, would include the freedom to choose the place where the educational institution will be located and run. The State, however, can make reasonable regulations for the purpose of ensuring adequate facilities for the proper education of the students in the said institution as a condition of granting aid to the institution but under the guise of such regulations it cannot impose conditions which would render the said fundamental right guaranteed under Article 30 (1) of the Constitution nugatory or illusory. 6. In fact on a reading of the Rules governing grant-in-aid to schools in Manipur, there is no specific provision which authorises the Govt to direct an educational institution, much less a minority institution, to shift the institution from one place to another. 6. In fact on a reading of the Rules governing grant-in-aid to schools in Manipur, there is no specific provision which authorises the Govt to direct an educational institution, much less a minority institution, to shift the institution from one place to another. In the present case, neither in the inspection report nor in the affidavit-in-opposition, the Govt has been able to show that such shifting of the aforesaid school from Leisan Tampak Hill Village to Songpi Village was necessary for the purpose of improving the educational facilities of the school. All that is sought to be shown is that the school did not have sufficient number of students or teachers and had inadequate facilities for the education of the students. The Govt would be fully within its jurisdiction to insist upon the improvement of the facilities of the school and to enquire about the strength of the students as well as teachers for the purpose of regulating grants-in-aid to the said school. But it will be beyond its jurisdiction and rather contrary to the fundamental right conferred on a religious minority under Article 30 (1) of the Constitution, if it interferes with its choice of place in which the school is to be established and run. 7. For the reasons stated above, the impugned order dated 16.10.90 of the Secretary (Education), Govt of Manipur (Annexure A/1) approving the shifting of Leisan Tampak Aided JB School from Leisan Tampak Hill Village to Songpi Village, is quashed. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.`