JUDGMENT K. Bhakthavatsala, J.--This writ appeal filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 is directed against order dated 9.6.1997 passed in Writ Petition No. 28304 of 1996 by the learned Single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition. The first Appellant is Society registered under the Societies Registration Act of 1960 with an object of promotion of Social and Religious upliftment amongst the Muslims. The second Appellant is a Religious Minority Institution. The Appellants and Respondents are hereinafter referred to as the Petitioners and Respondents as arraigned in the writ petition. 2. The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the writ petition may be stated as under: That by letter dated 19.8.1985 (Annexure-D) in Writ Petition No. 28304 of 1996 of the Office of the Assistant Director, B.E. (CNV) Act Enforcement Unit, Hubli informed the Petitioner No. 2 viz., the Principal, Anjuman Arts, Science and Commerce College, Bijapur stating that when he visited the College and inspected the records on 24.7.1984 from 1.4.1984 to 31.3.1985 and he noticed the following violations viz.: a) Quarterly returns for the quarter ended 30.9.1984 and 31.12.1984 was not rendered to the D.E.E., Bijapur within the due date. b) Quarterly returns for the quarter ended 31.3.1985 was not submitted inspite of reminders issued. c) One Sri N.A. Indikar, Lecturer and another Sri S.S. Quadri, FDC, were appointed permanently without notifying the vacancies under Section 4 of the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959. 3. On account of the abovesaid violations, the Respondent No. 2, Enforcement Unit called upon the Petitioner No. 2 to show-cause why action should not be initiated against it as per the violations of the act. 4. The Petitioner No. 2 replied by its letter dated 29.8.1985 (Annexure-E) to the Respondent No. 2 stating that it is a Minority Institution and it enjoys certain relaxations in the procedure for appointment under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India and also cited the decision reported in The Ahmedabad St. Xavier's College Society and Another Vs. State of Gujarat and Another, AIR 1974 SC 1389 and thus replied stating that the Petitioner No. 2 did not commit any breach of provisions of the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 (in short, 'the Act') and the Rules of 1960. Xavier's College Society and Another Vs. State of Gujarat and Another, AIR 1974 SC 1389 and thus replied stating that the Petitioner No. 2 did not commit any breach of provisions of the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 (in short, 'the Act') and the Rules of 1960. Thereafter, the Respondent No. 1 viz., the Director of Employment and Training, Bangalore, by his letter dated 5.9.1985 (Annexure-F) wrote a letter to the Petitioner No. 2 stating that there is no exemption for the Minority Institution under the Act and therefore the observation made by the Respondent No. 2 is quite in order. After that, the Respondent No. 2 by its letter dated 10.9.1985 (Annexure-G) wrote another letter to the Petitioner No. 2 stating that the two appointments made contrary to the Act, requires immediate action and therefore directed the Petitioner No. 2 to rectify the defects pointed out at the time of inspection by terminating the services of the abovesaid two persons within seven days of the receipt of the letter. Followed by that, the Respondent No. 2 issued a show-cause notice dated 30.9.1985 (Annexure-H), why it shall not be prosecuted in the competent Court of Law for the offence under Section 7(1) of the Act. The Petitioner No. 2 filed objections to the show-cause notice (marked as Annexure-J) reiterating its contentions and citing the decision of the Supreme Court reported in The Ahmedabad St. Xavier's College Society and Another Vs. State of Gujarat and Another, AIR 1974 SC 1389 etc. Thereafter, the Respondent No. 2 issued another letter dated 29.8.1996 (Annexure-K) rejecting the contention of the Petitioner No. 2. The Petitioners had prayed for the following reliefs in the Writ Petition: (i) A Declaration that the letter dated 29.8.1996 in No. CNU/INS/CR-3/96-97/1689 of the 2nd Respondent, (Annexure-K) as illegal and void. (ii) Any order or Direction prohibiting the 1st and 2nd Respondents from taking action to prosecute the Petitioner. (iii) Issue any Incidental and Consequential reliefs in aid of the main relief prayed for above, including the costs of this petition, in the interest of justice and equity. 5. (ii) Any order or Direction prohibiting the 1st and 2nd Respondents from taking action to prosecute the Petitioner. (iii) Issue any Incidental and Consequential reliefs in aid of the main relief prayed for above, including the costs of this petition, in the interest of justice and equity. 5. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the learned Counsels for the parties to the lis, held that whether the Petitioner No. 2 has contravened the provisions of the Act or norm is the subject matter, which has to be decided by the Magistrate, when the Respondents prosecute the Petitioners before him. Therefore, the learned Single Judge felt that it was not necessary to say anything on that aspect of the matter. Further, the learned Single Judge has held that the expression "establishment" occurring in the provisions of the Act includes "institution" and the provisions do not make a distinction between a Minority Institution or other Institution (vide Para No. 9 of the judgment of the learned Single Judge). The learned Single Judge has further held in Para No. 10 of his judgment that in his view the apprehension of the Petitioners was highly imaginary, and for any reason the Respondents prosecute the Petitioners before the competent Magistrate Court, they could take all such objections available to them including the contentions raised in the Writ Petition. With regard to cancellation of appointments concerned, the learned Single Judge has observed that the Respondents have not stated that the appointments made by the institution should be cancelled and what was stated in the order was that the Petitioner-Institution had contravened the provisions of Employment Exchange Act while appointing the said two persons viz., Sri Indikar as Lecturer and Sri S.S. Quadri as a FDC. Hence, the learned Single Judge felt that there was no merit in any of the contentions urged by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners. Therefore, the learned Single Judge rejected the Petition. Feeling aggrieved of the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the Petitioners have filed the present Writ Appeal. 6. Heard arguments. During the course of arguments, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners cited various decisions, but mainly relied upon the following decisions: 1) Mrs. Rajam Krishnan and Anr. Vs. Director of Employment and Training (Madras) 1973 (44) FJR 19 (Madras) 2)M.C. Narasimhamurthy Vs. Director of Collegiate Education 1967 (1) Mys LJ 612 (DB). 7. 6. Heard arguments. During the course of arguments, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners cited various decisions, but mainly relied upon the following decisions: 1) Mrs. Rajam Krishnan and Anr. Vs. Director of Employment and Training (Madras) 1973 (44) FJR 19 (Madras) 2)M.C. Narasimhamurthy Vs. Director of Collegiate Education 1967 (1) Mys LJ 612 (DB). 7. The first decision is on the point that an Educational Institution is not an establishment within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the Act, and another is that the appointment made in violation of Section 4(1) of the Act does not invalidate the appointments made. According to Section 2(e) of the Act, "establishment" means any office or any place where any industry, trade, business or occupation is carried on. According to Section 2(g) of the Act "establishment in private sector" means an establishment which is not an establishment in public sector and where ordinarily twenty-five or more persons are employed to work for remuneration. In the case of Mrs. Rajam Krishnan, the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court while interpreting the expression "establishment", has held that educational institution run by Charitable Trust does not come within the expression "establishment". Further the Madras High Court has held that an Institution run by minority community is exempt from the provisions of the Act. But, the learned Single Judge has not accepted the proposition laid down by the Madras High Court and on the contra he has held that the expression "establishment" occurring in the provisions of the Act includes an 'Institution'. However, it is pertinent to mention that even for the sake of arguments if the educational institution is treated as an establishment as per Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act, the appropriate Government has not issued notification in the official gazette as per Section 4(2) of the Act. Though the learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents was given sufficient time to produce copy of notification issued under Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act, he did not produce. Therefore, in the absence of issuance of such notification under Section 4(2) of the Act, it cannot be said that the Petitioners have violated the provisions of the Act. Therefore, in the absence of issuance of such notification under Section 4(2) of the Act, it cannot be said that the Petitioners have violated the provisions of the Act. Since we have come to the conclusion that the appropriate Government has not produced any notification as required under Section 4(2) of the Act, we restrain from answering the other contentions raised by the Petitioners. Therefore, the Writ Appeal is liable to be allowed and the order dated 9.6.1997 passed by the learned Single Judge will have to be set aside. Hence, we pass the following order: Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed and the impugned order of the learned Single Judge at Annexure-A is set aside. No order as to costs.