JUDGMENT P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J. 1. These writ petitions were once finally disposed of by this Court by judgment dated 4.10.1991. The said judgment was challenged in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court without going specifically into the merits of the case, remanded the writ petitions to this Court directing it to re-examine matters in the light of the decision rendered by a Constitution Bench of that Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, 2002 (8) SCC 481 . The parties were given liberty to file fresh pleadings, if any. It was directed that the State should bring all statutory enactments, orders, schemes and regulations relating to education, in conformity with the said decision. The petitioners in CWJC No. 1211 of 1991, after the remit by the Supreme Court, have filed a supplementary affidavit and further pleadings have been made also by the other parties, including the intervener. 2. What was challenged in CWJC No. 1211 of 1991 before this Court was an order by the Government holding that the college, re-named as Paramveer Albert Ekka Memorial College, was not a minority institution entitled to the protection of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. That order itself was based on a specific direction issued by this Court in an earlier writ petition, CWJC No. 758 of 1987(R). Meanwhile, the order of the Government was sought to be stayed by the Governor and that led to the teachers filing CWJC No. 1133 of 1991 challenging that action. The question that had to be decided by the Government could be best set out by quoting the relevant portion of the judgment in CWJC No. 758 of 1987(R). This Court directed thus : "In view of the disputed facts and in view of the fact that the claim of the petitioners have not been decided by any competent authority on the basis of documents brought on record by the parties, we are of the opinion that the question whether the college was established by a Christian minority and was administered by the Catholic Sabha at all material times should be left open to be decided by the State Government. The primary question to be decided is whether the college was established by a religious minority. If it is decided in the affirmative, it will follow that they have the right to administer it. The primary question to be decided is whether the college was established by a religious minority. If it is decided in the affirmative, it will follow that they have the right to administer it. The Government will grant opportunities to the parties to produce all relevant documents in connection with this question and also give opportunity to the parties of being heard, if request is made. The State Government shall thereafter record its finding with reference to the documents brought before it by the parties and dispose of the matter by recording a reasoned order." 3. Obviously the question that had to be decided by the Government was whether the institution was established by a minority community? The Government has recorded a finding that the institution was not established by a minority community. It was this finding of fact that was sought to be challenged by the petitioners in CWJC No. 1211 of 1991(R). In that writ petition, the Division Bench took the view that on the materials discussed by the Government and relied upon in the order, no ground was made out for interference in exercise of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In other words, the Division Bench held that the finding of fact was adequately supported by relevant materials and no ground for interference in certiorari was made out. As a consequence of this finding, the order of the Governor staying the operation of the order of the Government was quashed. Thus, CWJC No. 1211 of 1991 was dismissed and CWJC No. 1133 of 1991 was allowed. It was the decision of this Court that was taken up in appeal to the Supreme Court. 4. The question whether the High Court was justified in not interfering with the finding that the institution was not one established by a minority community in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was not considered by the Supreme Court. We find that once this finding of fact is found sustainable, as the law now stands, the claim of the petitioners in CWJC No. 1211 of 1991 has only to be rejected. In that event, the ratio of the decision in T.M.A. Pai Foundation, case (supra), may not have any direct bearing on the question. We find that once this finding of fact is found sustainable, as the law now stands, the claim of the petitioners in CWJC No. 1211 of 1991 has only to be rejected. In that event, the ratio of the decision in T.M.A. Pai Foundation, case (supra), may not have any direct bearing on the question. With respect it appears to us that the fact involved here, if at all, can only marginally be affected by the decision in the T.M.A. Pai Foundation, case so long as the interpretation of Article 30 of the Constitution to the effect that for an institution to qualify for its protection, it must be one established and administered by a minority community, on the plain language of the article, stands. In the circumstances, the only aspect to be considered is whether the finding of fact rendered by the Government in compliance with the direction of this Court to enter such a finding, calls for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. With respect, what we intend to point out is that the question whether that finding of fact calls for interference or not, may not be controlled by the ratio of the decision in T.M.A. Pai Foundation case and the question has to be dealt with as a question of fact and from the angle whether that finding of fact rendered, calls for interference in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Pursuant to the direction in CWJC No. 758 of 1987, adequate opportunity was given by the Government to the parties to adduce the relevant evidence before the Government. The parties were also given a full opportunity of being heard. Thus, there is no complaint of non-compliance with the direction of this Court or of denial of a proper hearing. In other words, no procedural objection to the decision making process was raised before us. The attempt made on behalf of the petitioners in CWJC No. 1211 of 1991 was only to try and challenge the finding rendered by the Government as unsustainable. Within the contours of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the attempt was only to show that the finding rendered by the Government that the institution was not one established by a minority community, suffered from an error apparent on the face of the record justifying interference by this Court. Within the contours of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the attempt was only to show that the finding rendered by the Government that the institution was not one established by a minority community, suffered from an error apparent on the face of the record justifying interference by this Court. On the other hand, the petitioners in CWJC No. 1133 of 1991 and the intervener and the Government Advocate sought to support the finding rendered by the Government and to submit that the finding was supported by adequate materials and the same could not be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In fact, counsel went to the extent of saying that the earlier Division Bench of this Court had already held so and since that part of the decision has not been considered to be unsustainable by the Supreme Court, there remained nothing to be decided and this Court (sic) only accepted the decision already taken by this Court on that aspect. We difficult to accept this submission, though we see some ingenuity in it, since the matter has been remanded to us by the Supreme Court for a decision de novo, albeit without considering specifically whether the decision of this Court earlier rendered called for interference. 6. The Government has found in its order that the College was established by the public of the locality and not by any particular community, though the Catholic Sabha also did get itself involved in the establishment of the educational institution. Along with the supplementary pleadings filed before us on 1.12.2003, on the behalf of the petitioners in CWJC No. 1211 of 1991, certain correspondence have been produced. From them it is seen that on 6.1.1972, the local Catholic had met and considered the question of the demand of the local people for the establishment of a college. The Catholics thought that a college should be opened by the Vicariate Catholic Sabha and therefore, the meeting had constituted an ad hoc committee to finalize it. It is also stated that the ad hoc committee felt that the college should be a minority college established under Article 29 of the Constitution, and in their letter dated 14.4.1972, they reiterated this position. But it appears that there was no adequate response to this, letter. It is also stated that the ad hoc committee felt that the college should be a minority college established under Article 29 of the Constitution, and in their letter dated 14.4.1972, they reiterated this position. But it appears that there was no adequate response to this, letter. The College was started some time in the year 1975 and just preceding that, we get another communication by the Secretary, Paramveer Albert Ekka Memorial College. Chainpur, dated 19.3.1975 which specifically mentioned, "the General mass of this locality has now decided to start it is proposed college with effect from the beginning of the coming session. I have therefore to request you to kindly depute inspectors of the college to inspect the proposed college as early as possible, so that we can start admission etc. right from now" . This, no doubt, is followed by an assertion that the college will be established as a minority institution on religious cum linguistic basis under Article 29 of the Indian Constitution. It may be seen that the college was granted affiliation on 5.9.1975. But the affiliation did not specify that the college was a minority institution as normally done, or it normally should have done, if the institution was a minority institution. Thus, the affiliation was as a general college. That was approved by the Government on 9.3.1976. Thereafter, the Catholic Sabha seems to have procured a certificate from a Deputy Registrar of the Ranchi University stating that a minority was running the institution. It may be noted in this context that while giving an answer to a question in the Bihar Vidhan Sabha, a statement was made that the institution was not a minority institution and the list of minority Institutions in the State was placed on the table of the House and that list did not contain the name of this Institution. We also find that the widow of Paramveer Albert Ekka, who had sacrificed his life in the Indo-Pakistan war of the year 1971, had written to the Prime Minister to the effect that a college must be established in the memory of her husband. We further find contributions being made from a various defence organizations and individuals, which could not be called minority organizations or as forming a part of the minority community. We further find contributions being made from a various defence organizations and individuals, which could not be called minority organizations or as forming a part of the minority community. The Government, in the background of these facts, also allotted or donated an extent of 22.66 acres of forest land for the purpose of this college. There is also the fact that even from the inception, the local citizens not belonging to the minority, were also part of the committee dealing with the establishment of the institution. The order of the Government also refers to a letter by the Principal, who was holding office, during the year 1975-77. In that letter. No. 9/77 dated 21.1.1977, addressed to the Chief Minister, the then Principal of the College had himself written that the college was a general college established by the general public, and not a minority college established by the minority. This letter was not produced before us by any of the parties and there was no attempt made on the side of the petitioners in CWJC No. 1211 of 1991 to show that the contents of that letter has been misunderstood by the Government or that the letter did not contain any such assertion or admission. In other words, there was no successful challenge on behalf of the petitioners in CWJC No. 1211 of 1991 to this material relied on by the Government. The other circumstance that was relied on was that a person not belonging to a minority dommunity was the Vice Chairman/Vice President of the Governing body of the Institution in question. The fact that one Basudeo Prasad Keshrl was the Vice Chairman of the Governing Body of the College and he did not belong to a minority community was not disputed by the petitioners in CWJC No. 1211 of 1991. A faint attempt was made to show that he was there only in his capacity as the Pradhan of the village, and that fact cannot be taken note of to decide the matter in controversy. Even if this be correct, the fact that the Pradhan not belonging to a minority community was also associated in the establishment of the institution goes against the claim that it was established by a minority. 7. Even if this be correct, the fact that the Pradhan not belonging to a minority community was also associated in the establishment of the institution goes against the claim that it was established by a minority. 7. What we get on the side of the petitioners In CWJC No. 1211 of 1991 is only an assertion that the institution was established by a minority community. No doubt, the community might have had the intention to start the college some time in the year 1972, but it appears that their attempt to start a college did not succeed immediately. In the meantime, the widow of Albert Ekka had also taken up the question of establishing a college in memory of her husband who had laid down his life for the country. At that stage, the people of the locality, irrespective of caste or creed, had come forward in support of establishing an educational institution. This is what is seen from the materials relied on by the Government as well as the letters referred to by us earlier. Thus, contributions were received from the public and a substantial extent of land was donated to the institution by the Government. Of course, there was some controversy before us whether there was any practice of the Government donating land to a minority institution or to an institution that was not a general institution. But what is relevant here is to notice that there is no adequate material or conclusive material on the basis of which one could come to the conclusion that this particular college was established by a minority community or that it was established exclusively by a minority community. All the relevant materials, in our view, have been considered by the Government while passing the order impugned in CWJC No. 1211 of 1991. Nothing irrelevant had been relied upon, nothing relevant was omitted. The contents of the effect of no document has been misunderstood. The finding, in our view, is clearly sustainable on the materials available in the case. On our part, we are also inclined to come to the same conclusion as the one arrived at by the Government. Nothing irrelevant had been relied upon, nothing relevant was omitted. The contents of the effect of no document has been misunderstood. The finding, in our view, is clearly sustainable on the materials available in the case. On our part, we are also inclined to come to the same conclusion as the one arrived at by the Government. We have, therefore, no difficulty in finding that the finding by the Government that the college is not shown to be one established by a minority community not only does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record, but it is also well supported by relevant materials. In that situation, it is not possible to uphold the challenge of the petitioners in CWJC No. 1211 of 1991 to the finding rendered by the Government. 8. In the face of the conclusion as above, we have necessarily to interfere with the order of the Governor purporting to keep in abeyance the decision of the Government that the institution is not one established by a minority community. The order of the Governor, therefore, requires to be interfered with in CWJC No. 1133 of 1991. In other words, that writ petition has to be allowed and the order of the Governor staying the operation of the order of the Government has to be quashed. 9. In CWJC No. 1133 of 1991, an application was sought to be filed before us by some persons claiming to be the teachers of the institution stating that they want to withdraw that writ petition. But the petitioners in that writ petition, submitted that they were not withdrawing the writ petition and nobody else had a right to withdraw that writ petition. We are of the view that the said writ petition could not be dismissed as withdrawn in such a situation, since it is not possible to decide whether the persons who wanted to withdraw the writ petition alone constituted the body on behalf of which that writ petition was filed. That apart, some of the persons had Intervened in CWJC No. 1211 of 1991 and had resisted that writ petition and we have necessarily to answer the question posed therein, pursuant to the order of remand by the Supreme Court. That apart, some of the persons had Intervened in CWJC No. 1211 of 1991 and had resisted that writ petition and we have necessarily to answer the question posed therein, pursuant to the order of remand by the Supreme Court. In this situation, we decline to dismiss CWJC No. 1133 of 1991 on the basis of the petition filed before us by some of the teachers stating that the writ petition may be treated as withdrawn. 10. In the result, we dismiss CWJC No. 1211 of 1991 and we allow CWJC No. 1133 of 1991, as prayed for.