JUDGMENT 1. This writ appeal has been filed against the order made in W.P.(MD)No.12109 of 2012 wherein the learned single Judge has upheld the order of the Government restricting the period of granting minority status to five years. 2. The case of the appellant before the learned single Judge was that Jeyaraj Annapackiam College for Women (Autonomous) was founded, established and administered by the Congregation of Sisters of St.Anne, Tiruchirappalli which is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. For effective administration of the college, a new Society was formed by name Jayaraj Annapackiam College for Women-College Committee, Periyakulam which was also registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, bearing Registration No.20 of 1969. The college was established in the year 1971, which is a minority educational institution in terms of Article 30 of the Constitution of India. The college was initially affiliated to the Madurai Kamaraj University and from the year 2002, it was affiliated to Mother Teresa Women’s University and was conferred with autonomous status by the University Grants Commission in the year 2004. According to the appellant, the appellant/society was also declared as a religious minority society by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.636 of 1975, vide order dated 21.09.1976. According to the appellant, even though minority status was given by this Court, subsequently the Government ordered to apply for minority status and an application was submitted pursuant to the said direction, and the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.57, Higher Education (E1) Department, dated 06.03.2009 granting minority status for a minimum period of five years from 2007 to 2012. The said restriction of five years was challenged on the ground that the chief object of the Society was not changed from the date of its formation and till date there is no necessity to restrict the period to five years, compelling the Management to apply for renewal of minority status every time. 3. Learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition stating that the question regarding laying of guidelines for grant of minority status is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and therefore, the State Government passed the impugned order in compliance with the directions of this Court directing the respondents to pass order on the representation of the petitioner in the earlier writ petition filed, which was also complied with by the Government. It is also stated in the order by the learned single Judge that the facts of this case may be peculiar and may not be a reason to confer minority status permanently. 4. The issue as to whether the appellant/Society which was already declared by this Court as minority Society/Institution, which was granted minority declaration by the Government for a minimum period, has to be directed to approach the Government for continuing the minority status was considered by this Court by one of us (N. Paul Vasantha Kumar, J.), in W.P.No.24606 of 2012 reported in Secretary, Loyala College v. The State of Tamil Nadu, 2012 (2) CWC 728. In the said judgment, a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in Thirumuruga Kirupananda Variyar Thavathiru Sundara Swamingal, Medical, Educational and Charitable Trust, Salem v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2001) 3 MLJ 433 was followed. Paragraph-5 of the said judgment reported in Thirumuruga Kirupananda Variyar Thavathiru Sundara Swamingal, Medical, Educational and Charitable Trust, Salem v. State of Tamil Nadu (supra) runs thus: “... the Government while considering the Application made by the Appellant, duly took into account the fact that, (i) all the Trustees belong to Ariya Vaisya Telugu speaking Chettiar only from the year 1981 till date; (ii) the Trust has not included any new member in the Trust so far; (iii) the Trust has also stated that the Management is a registered Charitable Trust and the Board of Management belong to Ariya Vaisya Telugu speaking Chettiar; (iv) the additional deed executed by the Trust reflects the main objective of subserving the interests of the said minority community; (v) the Founders-Trustees, namely, (a) Thiru. A.Shanmughasundram (b) Tmt.S.Annapoorani and (c) Thiru.Saravanan who became a major at that time, belong to Telugu speaking Ariya Vaisya Chettiar Community and their mother-tongue is Telugu. By the aforesaid order dated 27.10.1997, the Government after verification of the documents produced, issued orders in the name of the Governor declaring the Medical College run by the Appellant as a linguistic minority institution for the purpose of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. By the aforesaid order dated 27.10.1997, the Government after verification of the documents produced, issued orders in the name of the Governor declaring the Medical College run by the Appellant as a linguistic minority institution for the purpose of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. In the face of the uncontroverted facts and circumstances brought on record, we are of the considered opinion that this is a fit case where the Appellant-Trust is entitled to its rights declared by the Government as a linguistic minority institution, as per G.O.Ms.No.532, dated 27.10.1997 and the Appellant will be eligible to continue to exercise its constitutional rights as recognised by the Government and the same is not liable to be effaced by the subsequent letter of the Government which is impugned in the Writ Petition out of which the present Writ Appeal arises. In conclusion, we hold that if any entity is once declared as minority entitling to the rights envisaged under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India, unless there is fundamental change of circumstances of suppression of facts, the Government has no power to take away that cherished Constitutional right which is a fundamental right and that too, by an ordinary letter without being preceded by a fair hearing in conformity with the principles of natural justice.” 5. The said judgment was also followed by the subsequent decisions of this Court in 2004 WLR 202 and again in the decision reported in (2009) 6 CTC 579. 6. The reason given by the learned single Judge for distinguishing the said judgment is that the matter is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court regarding the issue of grant of minority status to linguistic minorities. It is relevant to note herein that the appellant College is a religious minority institution, viz. Christian religion. It may be noted that Christians are minorities not only throughout India but also in the State of Tamil Nadu. The same is also made clear in the Government Order issued in G.O.Ms.No.270, Higher Education (J1) Department, dated 17.06.1998. In paragraph 8(vi), it is stated that to decide whether an applicant is a minority or not based on religion or language, the total population of that minority in the State of Tamil Nadu shall be taken into consideration and not the population of that minority in any particular region where the educational institution is situated. In paragraph 8(vi), it is stated that to decide whether an applicant is a minority or not based on religion or language, the total population of that minority in the State of Tamil Nadu shall be taken into consideration and not the population of that minority in any particular region where the educational institution is situated. Therefore, it is evident that the impugned order restricting minority status which was upheld by the learned single Judge is without noticing the said guidelines issued by the Government itself in G.O.Ms.No.270, Higher Education (J1) Department, dated 17.06.1998. It is also to be noted that the said Government Order, no where states that minority status can be given to a limited period. The Government is also not doubting the claim of minority status of the appellant-College. Hence the order restricting the period is without any rhyme or reason. 7. We are in entire agreement with the Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in Thirumuruga Kirupananda Variyar Thavathiru Sundara Swamingal, Medical, Educational and Charitable Trust, Salem v. State of Tamil Nadu stated supra. Accordingly, the order of the learned single Judge is set aside. The minority status given to the appellant will hold good without any restriction period. However, if the respondents are able to find any change in the constitution of educational agency or if the institution is run contrary to the Memorandum of Association/Bye-laws of the Society, it is open to the Government to issue notice and take appropriate decision in accordance with law. 8. The writ appeal is allowed with the above liberty. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. Writ appeal allowed.