Judgment : The prayer in the writ-petition is for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant recognition to the petitioner school from 6. 2002 without restricting the period of recognition and also without insisting upon the production of minority declaration order from the 1st respondent Government. 2. The case of the petitioner is as follows: .(i) The petitioner School was established as an Elementary School in the year 1978 by a person belonging to linguistic minority (Malayalam) and recognition was also granted and the management was transferred in favour of the deponent of the affidavit, namely A. Kamalan on 17. 1978. The transfer of management was also approved by the Education Department in terms of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 and the Rules framed thereunder. The School was thereafter upgraded as Middle School in the year 1985 and further upgraded as High School in the year 1990 and finally upgraded as Higher Secondary School during the year 1995-1996. The petitioner management filed a Suit to declare the School as a Minority Institution and it was declared as a linguistic minority School (Malayalam) in O.S.No.117 of 1992 by judgment dated 4. 1994 by the Principal District Munsif Court, Nagercoil. The petitioner School is having Standards 1 to 12 both in Malayalam and Tamil Medium in all classes and more than 1200 students are studying and there is no change of management altering the character of the Institution. Though grant in aid was sanctioned by the Government upto 10th Standard, recognition is granted on self-finance basis for standards 11 and 12. .(ii) The petitioner earlier approached this Court by filing a writ petition in W.P. No.15085 of 2009 and prayed for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to treat the petitioner School as linguistic minority School and forbear the 4th respondent from insisting upon the production of minority declaration while considering the approval of appointments made by the petitioner School. This Court by an order dated 8. 2009 allowed the Writ Petition and the said order was accepted by the Department and approved the appointments made in the petitioner School. (iii) The petitioner management applied for continuance of recognition and the same was returned by the 4th respondent on 19. 2009 stating that the petitioner has to produce proof to show its minority character (linguistic minority status Malayalam). (iii) The petitioner management applied for continuance of recognition and the same was returned by the 4th respondent on 19. 2009 stating that the petitioner has to produce proof to show its minority character (linguistic minority status Malayalam). Aggrieved over the said return made by the 4th respondent, this writ petition is filed with the above said prayer. 3. The learnedcounsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments submitted that even though a prayer is made to grant permanent recognition from 6. 2002, without reinstructing the period of recognition and without insisting the production of minority declaration from the 1st respondent, Government, the petitioner will be satisfied if an order is passed to treat the petitioner School as linguistic minority School and the respondents are directed to consider the grant of recognition from 6. 2002 within a given time. The said submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is recorded. 4. It is seen from the records that in O.S.No.117 of 1992 by judgment and decree dated 4. 1994, the learned Principal District Munsif, Nagercoil has already granted declaration in favour of the petitioner School declaring that it is a linguistic minority (Malayalam) School. 5. The issue as to whether once the competent Civil Court having granted minority declaration, the Institution should apply to the Government and get further declaration, was considered by me in W.P.No.11932 of 2008 and by judgment dated 7. 2008. I have considered the earlier orders of this Court in the decisions in (i) Correspondent, St. Ignatius Higher Secondary School, Kanyakumari District v. Director of School Education, Chennai and Others 1999 (1) CTC 121 (ii) Secretary, D.G. Vaishnav College, Chennai and Another v. Dr. T. Venkataraman and Others, (2001) 1 MLJ 412 : 2001 (4) CTC 641 (DB) (iii) Thirumuruga Kirupananda Variyar Thavathiru Sundara Swamigal, Medical Educational and Charitable Trust, Salem v. State of Tamil Nadu and Another (2001) 3 MLJ 433 (DB) and (iv) C.S.I. Institute of Technology, Thovalai v. Government of Tamil Nadu and Another 2004 WLR 202 and held that once declaration is already obtained from the competent Civil Court or from the Government, the said declaration will hold good and no further declaration need be obtained from the Government. For proper appreciation, the operative portion is extracted hereunder: “9. The very same issue was considered by this Court in the decision in Correspondent, St. For proper appreciation, the operative portion is extracted hereunder: “9. The very same issue was considered by this Court in the decision in Correspondent, St. Ignatius Higher Secondary School, Kanyakumari District v. Director of School Education, Chennai and Others 1999 (1) CTC 121 wherein the contention of the Government and the findings are stated in paragraphs 5 to 7, which reads as follows: “5. At this juncture, learned Government Advocate submitted that in view of the recent Order of the Honourable Supreme Court, the Government will have to declare the institute concerned as a minority institution and till then the same cannot have minority status. I do not think that the submission of learned Government Advocate could be accepted since the very order of the Supreme Court was placed before me by learned counsel for petitioner. The order was passed in I.A. No. 20 in T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others, W.P. (C) No. 317 of 1993. Going by that order, it is clear that the direction applied only to respondents Institutions which were parties to that I.A. The Honourable Supreme Court has held thus: (Relevant Portion): “(a) We have been informed that some of the respondents/Institutions are operating as minority institutions on the strength of various orders/decrees obtained from the Civil Courts. We pass hereby a general order staying the operation of all the decrees/orders which may have been given by any Civil Court in respect of the minority status or otherwise of any of the institutions which have been arrayed as respondents in this I.A. All the respondents/institutions shall be treated as non-minority institutions till they comply with the direction given by us at Sl. No. 2: (i) The Educational Institutions claiming minority status should approach the State Government and till the State Government issues an order declaring the Institution to be a minority institution, it cannot operate as such.” 6. Reference may be made to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in N. Ammad v. Manager, Emjay High School and Others, (1998) 6 SCC 674 , wherein their Lordships considered what is the effect of declaration. The argument was that even if the Government had not declared the institution as a minority institution, the status of minority institution will continue and the effect of the declaration is only a recognition of its legal character, in Paragraph. The argument was that even if the Government had not declared the institution as a minority institution, the status of minority institution will continue and the effect of the declaration is only a recognition of its legal character, in Paragraph. 13 of the judgment, Their Lordships have said thus: “When the Government declared the School as a minority school, it has recognised a factual position that the School was established and is being administered by a minority community. The declaration is only an open acceptance of a legal character which should necessarily have existed antecedent to such declaration. Therefore, we are unable to agree with the contention that the School can claim protection only after the Government declared it as minority school on 8. 1994.” 7. In view of the judgment in Diocese of Kottar v. State of Tamil Nadu, W.P. No. 497 of 1975 and also in view of the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court mentioned above, there cannot be any doubt as to the minority status of the petitioners.” 10. The binding nature of the Civil Court decree granting minority status was again considered by a Division Bench of this Court in the decision Secretary, D.G. Vaishnav College, Chennai and Another v. Dr. T. Venkataraman and Others 2001 (4) CTC 641 , and in paragraph 3 the Division Bench held as follows: “3. The appellant in W.A. No. 2387 of 2001 has been granted a minority status by a declaration granted by a decree dated 12. 1988 by the Court of the Principal District Judge, Madras, in A.S. No. 275 of 1987. It is not disputed that the said decree had become final. As on date, the said decree has not been nullified. But Mr. P. Jyothimani, learned counsel for the first respondent, submits that in view of G.O. (Ms) No. 270, dated 16. 1998, the decree, which has been granted on 12. 1988, had become inoperative. prima facie, we are unable to agree with the said submission as the Government has been a party and suffered a decree on 12. 1988 and the said decree having become final, the Government is bound by the same unless there is a specific legislation that too, if it is not an affront to the above decree granted by the judicial authority. Then Mr. 1988 and the said decree having become final, the Government is bound by the same unless there is a specific legislation that too, if it is not an affront to the above decree granted by the judicial authority. Then Mr. Jyothimani takes us to the order of the Supreme Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others, L.A. No. 20 in W.P. (C) No. 317 of 1993 dated 110. 1994. It is not disputed that the said writ Petition is still pending on the file of the Supreme Court. In the interim order passed on the above date, the Civil Court’s decree granting minority status to the respondents, who have been parties therein, that is respondents 2 to 6, has not been taken cognisance of Particular reference has been made to the said respondents and the said order does not operate in rem. In fact that position has been clarified by a learned single Judge of this Court in Correspondent, St. Ignatius Higher Secondary School, Kurumbanai- 629 251, Kanyakumari District and Others v. Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai – 6 and Others (supra),. It is not brought to our notice that this judgment of the learned single Judge has been over ruled. As such, we find a prima facie case in favour of the appellant in W.A. No. 2387 of 2001 that it still enjoys minority status as on date.” In the above Division Bench Judgment, the order of the learned single Judge Correspondent, St. Ignatius Higher Secondary School, Kurumbanai-629 251, Kanyakumari District and Others v. Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai-6 and Others (supra) was approved and it is categorically held that – once the minority declaration is made by a competent Civil Court, the said institution need not apply again to the Government to declare its status as the Civil Court judgment has become final. 11. Similar issue was considered by me in W.P. (MD) No. 1971 of 2007 order dated 20.11.2007, wherein the petitioner educational agency and its institutions, which were granted minority status by the Government for the academic year, was required to get renewal of minority status from the Government. 11. Similar issue was considered by me in W.P. (MD) No. 1971 of 2007 order dated 20.11.2007, wherein the petitioner educational agency and its institutions, which were granted minority status by the Government for the academic year, was required to get renewal of minority status from the Government. Following the earlier judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Thirumuruga Kirupananda Variyar Thavathiru Sundara Swarnigal, Medical Educational and Charitable Trust, Salem v. State of Tamil Nadu and Another (supra), I have allowed the writ petition holding that the minority declaration once granted will hold good for the subsequent years also, unless it is duly cancelled by the Government. The said Division Bench judgment was followed by a learned single Judge in the decision C.S.L. Institute of Technology, Thovalai v. Government of Tamil Nadu and Another (supra), and paragraph 6 of the decision is extracted hereunder: “6. It is true that by order dated 20.11.2003, the Government had renewed the minority status of the petitioner institution for the academic year 2001-2002. But the question which arises for consideration in this writ petition is with regard to the justification of the Government to seek for periodical renewal for every academic year. That issue was particularly considered by the Division Bench of this Court as stated above. I am in respectful agreement with the views expressed by the Division Bench in this context. There is no provocation for the Government to insist on such renewal for every year when once the institution has been granted the Minority Status. Unless or otherwise, there is any change in the Constitution of the agency or any adverse information is received by the Government, which might lead to the conclusion that the declaration of the Institution is fraudulent and erroneous or the Management had undergone any change in its constitution, there is absolutely no need or necessity for the Government to expect such periodical renewal. Such requirement will unnecessarily lead to delay and red-tapism which is totally uncalled for. In the present case itself for the academic year 2001-2002 renewal is granted only on 20.11.2003, that too only because the petitioner has moved this Court. The administration of the school and the plight of the students cannot be kept under such unreasonable suspense and doubt, which is totally unwarranted. In the present case itself for the academic year 2001-2002 renewal is granted only on 20.11.2003, that too only because the petitioner has moved this Court. The administration of the school and the plight of the students cannot be kept under such unreasonable suspense and doubt, which is totally unwarranted. Assuming that periodical check is necessary, the Government should evolve a methodology whereby renewal could be sought for once in five years or more and in such a manner that renewal should be applied for and granted atleast three or four months prior to the lapse of the said period. The present requirement of annual renewal is neither reasonable nor warranted. As stated earlier, it is always open to the authorities to call upon the management to explain the position if any adverse information is received by the Government. It is totally unreasonable to expect all the minority schools in the State to be knocking at the doors of the authorities every year and the authorities would pass orders only after two years as in this case in spite of filing of a writ petition.” The above said orders are again followed by me in W.P. No.27840 of 2085, order dated 22. 2008.” 6. In W.P. No. 20330 of 2001 judgment dated 3. 2010 –the same view is taken by the learned single Judge of this Court following the earlier decisions including the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ahmadabad St. Xavier’s College Society v. State of Gujarat (1974) 1 SCC 717 . Further, the very same School is directed to be treated as linguistic minority School in W.P. No.15085 of 2009 dated 8. 2889. 7. In the light of the said decisions and having regard to the fact that the competent Civil Court has already granted declaration in favour of the petitioner holding that the petitioner School is a linguistic minority School (Malayalam), the respondents are not justified in demanding further proof of minority status from the petitioner to consider the request of recognition. Therefore, the respondents are bound to treat the petitioner School as a linguistic minority School (Malayalam) and consider the request of the petitioner seeking grant of recognition from 6. 2002. Necessary order is directed to be passed by the competent authority within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. Therefore, the respondents are bound to treat the petitioner School as a linguistic minority School (Malayalam) and consider the request of the petitioner seeking grant of recognition from 6. 2002. Necessary order is directed to be passed by the competent authority within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petition stands closed. Petition disposed of.