Judgment :- S. JAGADEESAN, J. The appellant-society in W.A. 1726/98 is running various educational institutions. The appellant filed a suit O.S. 5334/93 before the City Civil Court, Chennai for declaration that it is a Minority Institution and entitled to constitutional protection as such Minority Institution. After contest, the said suit was decreed on 18.7.94. Thereafter the appellant filed an application on 5.7.95 before the Government of Tamil Nadu for an order declaring that all the institutions established and managed by it are entitled to the benefits of minority status. While the application was pending, the Government issued G.O.Ms. No. 270 Higher Education (Jl) Department, dated 17.6.98 prescribing the guidelines to dispose of the pending applications claiming minority status and also the applications which will be received in future from the educational institutions. Challenging the said G.O., the appellant filed writ petition W.P. 10232/98. 2. The appellant in Writ Appeal No. 1727/98 is one Rajalakshmi Educational Trust who filed application before the Government for declaration of minority status on linguistic basis. The Government has rejected the request of the appellant Trust by letter dated 8.7.98. Challenging the said order, the appellant filed W.P. 10074/98. 3. Both the writ petitions were heard by the learned single Judge and were dismissed by common order dated 9.9.98. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Appeals have been filed. 4. The learned senior counsel for the appellant contended that the application of the appellant in Writ Appeal No. 1726/98 was pending from 5.7.95 during which period G.O.Ms. No. 371, Education Science and Technology Department dated 10.5.95 was in force. Hence the appellants application ought to have been disposed of in terms of the guidelines prescribed in the said G.O. and G.O.Ms. No. 270, Higher Education dated 17.6.98 cannot be made applicable to the appellants case. 5. So far as W.A. 1727/98 is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned order rejecting the application of the applicant for declaration of minority status on linguistic basis is without giving any opportunity to the appellant and as such the same is in violation of the principles of natural justice and on this short ground, the appeal has to be allowed and the proceedings of the respondent dated 8.7.98 have to be set aside and the matter have to be remitted to Government for fresh disposal. 6. 6. We have carefully considered the contention of the learned senior counsel. On merits, we hold that no exception could be taken to the judgment of the learned Single Judge who had taken so much of pains in elaborately discussing the contention of the petitioner by referring to various judgments. We are of the opinion that it is unnecessary to restate the very same contentions and repeat the very same conclusions in our judgment, as we entirely agree with the reasons assigned and conclusion arrived at by the learned single Judge while dismissing the writ petitions. Avoiding the repetition of factual aspect as well the contentions urged by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and accepting the reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge, we simply endorse the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 7. So far as the contention of the learned senior counsel for the appellant in W.A. 1727/98 is concerned, the learned Senior Counsel ought to have advanced such an argument before the learned Single Judge and sought for an opportunity. Without doing so, the learned counsel for the appellant had produced the Trust Deed as well as the other relevant documents at the time of hearing before the learned Judge who had taken pains to peruse the same and considered the terms of the Trust Deed elaborately while holding that it is not a minority institution. Having produced all the relevant materials before the learned Single Judge and having invited a decision on merits, we are of the opinion that it is neither proper nor required for us to remit the matter to the State Government just to afford further opportunity to the appellant by setting aside the order, even assuming that the order of the Government is vitiated by non-observance of the principle of audi alteram partem. 8. As pointed out by the learned Single Judge, the appellant has not established the fact that the guidelines prescribed under G.O.Ms. No. 270 Higher Education dated 17.6.98 had been fulfilled by the appellant to secure the declaration prayed for. When once the Government prescribes the guidelines, it is incumbent on the applicant to satisfy those guidelines in order to get an order. It is not as if the guidelines are being challenged. No. 270 Higher Education dated 17.6.98 had been fulfilled by the appellant to secure the declaration prayed for. When once the Government prescribes the guidelines, it is incumbent on the applicant to satisfy those guidelines in order to get an order. It is not as if the guidelines are being challenged. When admittedly the guidelines had not been fulfilled, as held by the learned Single Judge, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief as prayed for. 9. However, the learned senior counsel for the appellant had elaborately argued the matter before the learned Single Judge, raising all the issues and the learned Single Judge also discussed every issue in detail and ultimately while negativing ‘ the contentions, dismissed the writ petitions on merits. Hence it cannot be said that the appellant has not been given an opportunity at this stage. 10. Accordingly we do not find any merit in the Writ Appeals and the same are dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.