JUDGMENT - SHAH A.P., J.:---The petitioners seek a declaration that. the order dated 4th July, 1995 passed by the Director of Technical Education of the State of Maharashtra refusing to accord minority educational status to the petitioners' college of architecture is arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional. The petitioners also seek a writ of certiorari to quash and set aside the order of 4th July, 1995. The petitioners further seek a writ of mandamus (i) to forthwith withdraw and cancel the order of 4th July, 1995; (ii) to recognise the petitioners' architectural college as a minority institution, and (iii) not to interfere with the constitutional right of the petitioners as a minority institution in admitting 50% of the total seats from the students belonging to minority community according to merit and the remaining 50% from the general candidates according to merit. 2. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner No. 1 is a society registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1960. The petitioner No. 1 is established as a society by persons speaking Malayalam language who constitute a linguistic minority in State of Maharashtra. The main object of the society is to promote the cause of education amongst all citizens in general and Keralites in particular. In the memorandum of association of the society the objective of the society is stated : (a) to promote the cause of education amongst all citizens in general and Keralites in particular and to meet the education standards of Keralites in Greater Mumbai and adjoining areas by opening various educational institutions; (b) to establish and conduct library and reading rooms; (c) to organise, encourage, develop, promote and co-ordinate the educational and sports activities, and (d) to do all such acts, deeds and things as are incidental or conducive to the attainment of the above object of any of them. 3. According to the petitioners, the petitioner No. 1 has been established exclusively by persons speaking Malayalam language. All the 11 persons whose names have been appended to the memorandum of association as members of the governing body to whom the management of the affairs is entrusted, speak Malayalam language which is their mother-tongue. The petitioners maintain that the person speaking Malayalam language constitute about 3.72 of the total population of the State of Maharashtra under the census of 1991. The petitioners maintain that the person speaking Malayalam language constitute about 3.72 of the total population of the State of Maharashtra under the census of 1991. This class of persons, according to the petitioners is, therefore, a linguistic minority under Article 30 of the Constitution and is entitled to establish and administer educational institutions of its own choice. The petitioner No. 1 is running several educational institutions which includes schools and colleges in Mumbai and Navi Mumbai. The B.Ed. College and the night degree college run by the petitioner No. 1 have been recognised as minority educational institution by the University of Mumbai and the society has been extended benefits under Article 30 of the Constitution. 4. The State Government vide its order dated 24th July 1992 granted permission to the petitioner No. 1 to start the college of architecture in Navi Mumbai on non-aided basis. By the said order the college was sanctioned the strength of 40 seats. The AII India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) by its letter dated 13th July, 1992 addressed to the State Government granted approval to the petitioner No. 1 to start the College of Architecture. Pursuant to the permission granted by the AICTE and the State Government, the petitioner No. 1 society started the petitioner No. 2 College of Architecture in Navi Mumbai from 1992. The petitioner No. 2 College conducts degree course of architecture. By letter dated 15th October, 1993 the University of Mumbai has recognised the petitioner No. 2 College as a minority educational institution. 5. Under the relevant guidelines for admission to the course of architect, a non minority unaided college is permitted to admit 20% of the total seat as management quota and the balance 80% of the seats are filled up by the Director of Technical Education under a central system of admission. The main contention of the petitioners is that their college of architecture being a minority educational institution cannot be forced to admit students as per the policy of the State Government to grant only 20% of the total seats to be filled by the management. The petitioners submit that the policy of the State Government infringes their right under Article 30(1) of the Constitution. The petitioners place strong reliance on the decision of the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in (Stephen's College v. University of Delhi)1, 1992(1) S.C.C. 558 . 6. The petitioners submit that the policy of the State Government infringes their right under Article 30(1) of the Constitution. The petitioners place strong reliance on the decision of the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in (Stephen's College v. University of Delhi)1, 1992(1) S.C.C. 558 . 6. By their letter dated 14th October, 1994 addressed to the Director of Technical Education, the petitioners requested to consider the minority status of their architectural college and permit the college to grant 50% admissions of the total seats to the students belonging to the minority institutions on merits and to fill up the remaining 50% by the college from students of open category on merits. The petitioners also sent a reminder dated 14th October, 1995. It seems that although the academic year 1995-96 was on the verge of commencement, the State Government did not care to reply to the petitioners' representation. Therefore, the petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 736 of 1995. By an interim order passed by this Court on 13th June, 1995, the petitioner No. 2 college was permitted to admit 50% of the total number of seats from open category of candidates and the balance 50% from students belonging to the linguistic minority (Malayalam speaking community) according to merit subject to forwarding the list of admission to the University of Mumbai for verification. By the said order of this Court the respondents were directed to dispose of within two weeks the application of the petitioners for verification of the minority status. It was clarified that in the event of the petitioners' claim as minority institution on verification was found to be correct, the procedure for admission under the interim order would be followed by the petitioners' college of architecture. 7. By the impugned order of 4th July, 1995 the Director of Technical Education held, inter alia, that the college of architecture run by the petitioner No. 1 does not deserve to be granted minority educational institution status. For coming to this conclusion the Director of Technical Education recorded several reasons. Firstly, he observed that while forwarding the application for establishment of the college of architecture, the petitioner No. 1 did not disclose an intention of the college being established as minority institution. For coming to this conclusion the Director of Technical Education recorded several reasons. Firstly, he observed that while forwarding the application for establishment of the college of architecture, the petitioner No. 1 did not disclose an intention of the college being established as minority institution. Secondly, it was observed by the Director that the petitioners have given an undertaking that the rules and regulations for regular admissions will be the same as announced every year by the Director of Technical Education and there will be no difference between the rules and regulations of the admissions of this institution and other existing institutions. Then thirdly it was observed that the approval granted by the AICTE does not show that the institution has been recognised as a minority educational institution. Next, the Director observed that if minority status is accorded to the petitioners' college it will be contrary to the scheme laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of (J.P. Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh)2, 1993(1) S.C.C. 645 . Lastly, the Director observed that if minority status is accorded to the petitioners' college, students from backward category will be denied opportunity to get admission in the petitioner No. 2 college. He has also noted that the matter is under consideration of the larger Bench of the Supreme Court. 8. Dr. Chandrachud, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners strenuously contended that the impugned order of 4th July, 1995 is patently arbitrary and unconstitutional. Dr. Chandrachud urged that the Director has completely misconstrued the application of the petitioners. The Director erroneously assumed that the petitioners' application was for according status of a minority educational institution while the same was only for verification of its status as a minority institution. The counsel further urged that the right of the minority to establish an educational institutions of its choice is expressly preserved by Article 30(1) of the Constitution. He. pointed out that the petitioner No. 1 is established by a linguistic minority of Malayalam speaking people and, therefore, can legitimately claim the benefits as a minority institution in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court. He also pointed out that the reasons given by the Director are completely irrelevant for the purpose of verification of the status of the minority of an educational institution. He also pointed out that the reasons given by the Director are completely irrelevant for the purpose of verification of the status of the minority of an educational institution. He contended that the petitioner No. 1 has been recognised as a minority institution by the State Government as well as by the Mumbai University in so far as its college of commerce and night degree college are concerned and there is no reason to deny the status of a minority educational institution to the college of architect opened by the petitioners in the year 1992. On the other hand, Ms. Purohit, learned AGP supported the reasoning of the Director. She submitted that the Director has given cogent reasons for denying the minority status to the architectural college of the petitioner No. 1 and therefore no interference is warranted under Article 226. 9. The principal question which requires determination is whether the petitioner No. 2 college of architecture has been established and administered by a religious or linguistic minority, having a distinct language, script or culture of its own within the meaning of Articles 29 and 30(1) of the Constitution. Articles 29 and 30(1) are as follows : 29. Protection of interest of minorities.---(1) Any section of the citizens residing in the territory of India or any part thereof having a distinct language, script or culture of its own shall have the right to conserve the same. (2) No citizen shall be denied admission into any educational institution maintained by the State or receiving aid out of State funds on grounds only of religion, race, caste, language or any of them. 30. Right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions.---(1) All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. It will be observed that Article 39(1) is wider than Article 30(1), in that while any section of the citizens including the minorities, can invoke the rights guaranteed under Article 29(1), the rights guaranteed under Articles 30(1) are only available to the minorities based on religion or language. It is not necessary for Article 30(1) that the minority should be both a religious minority as well as linguistic minority. It is sufficient if it is one or the other or both. It is not necessary for Article 30(1) that the minority should be both a religious minority as well as linguistic minority. It is sufficient if it is one or the other or both. On a combined reading of these two Articles it is seen that a religious or linguistic minority has a right to establish and administer educational institutions of its choice for effectively conserving its distinctive language, script or culture, which right however is subject to the regulatory powers of the State for maintaining and facilitating the excellence of its standards. This right is further subject to clause (2) of Article 29 which provides that no citizen, shall be denied admission into any educational institution which is maintained by the State or receives aid out of State funds, on ground only of religion, race, caste, language or any of them. 10. It is now well settled that Article 30(1) also covers minority institution imparting general secular education. In (Rev. Father Proosi v. State of Bihar)3, A.I.R. 1969 S.C. 465, Hidayatullah. C. J., observed : In our opinion, the width of Article 30(1) cannot be cut down by introducing in it considerations on which Article 29(1) is based. The latter Article is a general protection which is given to minorities to conserve their language, script or culture. The former is a special right to minorities to establish educational institutions of their choice. This choice is not limited to institution seeking to conserve language, script or culture and the choice is not taken away if the minority community having established an educational institution of its choice also admits members of other communities. That is a circumstance irrelevant for the application of Article 30(1) since no such limitation is expressed and none can be implied. The two, Articles create two separate rights, although it is possible that they may meet in a given case. 11. In (St. Xaviers College v. State of Gujarat)4, A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 1389, nine Judges' Bench of the Supreme Court reiterated this legal position. It was held that Article 30(1) covers institutions imparting general secular education. The object of Article 30 is to enable children of minorities to go out in the world fully equipped. 11. In (St. Xaviers College v. State of Gujarat)4, A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 1389, nine Judges' Bench of the Supreme Court reiterated this legal position. It was held that Article 30(1) covers institutions imparting general secular education. The object of Article 30 is to enable children of minorities to go out in the world fully equipped. It will be wrong to read Article 30(1) as restricting the right of the minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice only to cases where such institutions are concerned with language, script or culture of the minorities. Articles 29 and 30 create two separate rights though it is possible that the rights might meet in a given case. 12. The next question is what constitute religious or linguistic minority and how it is to be determined. In (D.A.V. College, Jullundur v. State of Punjab)5, A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 1737, the Supreme Court has laid down guidelines in paragraphs 9 and 10 as follows : 9. Though there was a faint attempt to canvass the position that religious or linguistic minorities should be minorities in relation to the entire population of the country, in our view, they are to be determined only in relation to the particular legislation which is sought to be impugned, namely that if it is the State legislature these minorities have to be determined in relation to the population of the State. On this aspect Das, C.J., in Kerala Education Bills case, speaking for the majority thought that there was a fallacy in the suggestion that a minority or section envisaged by Article 30(1) and Article 29(1) could mean only such persons as constitute numerically minority in the particular region where the educational institution was situated or resided under local authority. On this aspect Das, C.J., in Kerala Education Bills case, speaking for the majority thought that there was a fallacy in the suggestion that a minority or section envisaged by Article 30(1) and Article 29(1) could mean only such persons as constitute numerically minority in the particular region where the educational institution was situated or resided under local authority. He, however, thought, it was not necessary to express a final opinion as to whether education being the subject matter of Item 11 of the State list, subject only to the provisions of Entry 62,63,64 and 66 of List I and Entry 25 of List III the existence of a minority community should in all circumstances and for purposes of all laws of that State be determined on the basis of the population of the whole State or whether it should be determined on the said basis only when the validity of a law extending to the whole State is in question or whether it should be determined on the basis of a population of a locality when the law under that Act applies only to that locality, because in that case the Bill before the Court extended to the whole of the State of Kerala and consequently the minority must be determined by reference to the entire population of that State. 10. It is undisputed, and it was also conceded by the State of Punjab, that the Hindus of Punjab are a religious minority in the State though they may not be so in relation to the entire country. The claim of Arya Samaj to be a linguistic minority was however contested. A linguistic minority for the purpose of Article 30(1) is one which must at least have a separate spoken language, it is not necessary that that language should also have a distinct script for those who speak it to be a linguistic minority. There are in this country some languages which have no script of their own, but nonetheless those sections of the people who speak that language will be a linguistic minority entitled to the protection of Article 30(1). 13. Thus, when question arises whether a particular institution is a minority educational institution or not, it is required to be determined in relation to a particular legislation which is sought to be impugned. 13. Thus, when question arises whether a particular institution is a minority educational institution or not, it is required to be determined in relation to a particular legislation which is sought to be impugned. If it is the State Government, the question is required to be determined in relation to the population of that State. Further a linguistic minority for the purpose of Article 30(1) is one which must at least have a separate spoken language. It is not necessary that that language should have a distinct script for those who speak it to be linguistic minority. Admittedly, the petitioner No. 1 institution is founded by persons who speak Malayalam language. All the members of the governing council of the petitioner No. 1 are Malayali speaking people. Their memorandum of association makes it clear that the society is established essentially for the purpose of Malayalam speaking people. There is no dispute that Malayalam speaking people form only a small fragment of the population of the State and, therefore, the petitioners' plea that their college is founded by linguistic minority in the State and, therefore, entitled to protection of Article 30(1) is liable to be accepted. It is open for a linguistic minority to run a secular educational institution and even such an institution will be covered with the ambit of Article 30(1). Therefore, the college of architecture of the petitioner No. 1 is clearly protected by Article 30(1) of the Constitution. 14. In St. Stephen's College case (supra), the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that the minority aided educational institutions are entitled to prefer their community candidates to maintain the minority character of the institutions subject to conformity with the University standard. The State may regulate the intake in this category with due regard to the need of the community in the area which the institution is intended to serve. But in no case such intake shall exceed 50 per cent of the annual admission. The minority institutions shall make available at least 50 per cent of the annual admission to members of communities other than the minority community. The admission of other community candidates shall be done purely on the basis of merit. In other words, minority institutions are entitled under Article 30(1) to accord, preference in favour of or reserve seats for candidates belonging to their own community. The admission of other community candidates shall be done purely on the basis of merit. In other words, minority institutions are entitled under Article 30(1) to accord, preference in favour of or reserve seats for candidates belonging to their own community. However maximum limit of such preferential admission must be 50 per cent of the annual admission. In that view of the matter, the right of the petitioners to fill in 50 per cent of the seats by candidates belonging to the minority i.e. Malayalam speaking community cannot be disputed. Ms. Purohit urged that now the issue of minority educational institutions is referred to a larger Bench of the Supreme Court. She submitted that till the larger Bench adjudicates upon the rights of the minority institutions, the petitioners should not be allowed to fill up the seats by minority students. It is true that the issue pertaining to minority educational institutions is referred to a larger Bench, however pending the reference, the Supreme Court has passed interim orders permitting the minority educational institutions to admit minority students to the maximum limit of 50 per cent subject to certain terms and conditions. There is no reason as to why similar relief should not be granted in favour of the petitioners. 15. Now coming to the reasons given by the Director for rejecting the petitioners' application, Dr. Chandrachud is right in his contention that the reasons given by the Director in the impugned order are really not germane to the issue of verification of the minority status of the petitioner. The Director has erroneously assumed that the petitioner No. 1 ought to have disclosed in its application for opening the college that it is being established as a minority institution. It is not necessary for any minority institution to disclose such intention. A minority institution has got right to open an educational school or college of its choice as such a right is expressly conferred under Article 29(1). The minority status of such institution cannot be taken away on the ground that such intention was not disclosed in the original application. For the same reason the undertakings given by the petitioner No. 1 are of little consequence for the purpose of determining the status of the petitioners' college as a minority educational institution. The minority status of such institution cannot be taken away on the ground that such intention was not disclosed in the original application. For the same reason the undertakings given by the petitioner No. 1 are of little consequence for the purpose of determining the status of the petitioners' college as a minority educational institution. The observation of the Director that the permission given by the AICTE does not disclose that the petitioner No. 2 was recognised as a minority educational institution is equally erroneous. It is not the function of the AICTE to grant minority status to any institution. The petitioners' other institutions are recognised as a minority institution by the State Government as well as the Mumbai University. On this background, it is not possible to sustain the order of the Director denying the status of a minority educational institution to the architectural college of the petitioner No. 1. 16. In the result, petition succeeds. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b) and (c). Parties are directed to follow the following procedure in respect of the admissions to the petitioner No. 2 architectural college :- (i) 50 per cent of the total intake in the petitioner No. 2 college shall be permitted to be filled up by the candidates selected by the agencies of the State Government on the basis of a competitive examination/test according to merits. Out of 50 per cent seats to be filled up by the Government, half will be payment seats and half will be free seats. (ii) Remaining 50 per cent of the intake may be filled in by the petitioners. Out of the said 50 per cent of the seats to be filled up by the management, half shall be payment seats and the other half free seats. The 50 per cent minority quota shall also be filled up strictly according to merits to be determined as per the rules. (iii) After completing the admissions, the petitioners shall submit to the competent authority, to the University and to the State Government statement containing full particulars of the students admitted under clause (ii) above. Such statement shall contain as full a particular as possible. The authorities to whom the statements are submitted shall verify the correctness of the statements and if they find any irregularity, they shall call upon the petitioners to rectify the same. Such statement shall contain as full a particular as possible. The authorities to whom the statements are submitted shall verify the correctness of the statements and if they find any irregularity, they shall call upon the petitioners to rectify the same. It is made clear that any such irregularity, if proved, may entail serious consequences. Needless to say that this order shall be subject to the decision of the larger Bench of the Supreme Court. Petition allowed. -----