Judgment :- 1. In all these writ petitions the petitioners are aggrieved against the respective impugned proceedings restricting the minority status granted to the petitioners only for a limited period. 2. All these matters are taken up after notice to the respondents and by consent of both parties, the main writ petitions are taken up for final disposal in view of the fact that the issue involved in these cases are squarely covered by the various decisions made by this Court in favour of the petitioners out of which one decision is made by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.9453 of 2014 dated 04.02.2015. 3. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are belonging to the linguistic minorities and accordingly they were granted minority status by the Government by passing the respective impugned orders, however, limiting such minority status only for a period of five years. The issue as to whether the minority status can be conferred only for a limited period was taken up for consideration by this Court earlier in very many cases and it has been held therein that no such restriction can be imposed, while granting the minority status. In fact, the Honourable Division Bench of this Court in a decision in The Secretary, Jeyaraj Annapackiam College for Women (Autonomous) Vs. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary and others reported in (2013) Vol 8 MLJ 509, held at paragraph Nos.4, 5 and 6 as follows:- “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 Vasanthakumar, J.), in W.P.No.24606 of 2012 reported in 2012 (2) CWC 728 (The Secretary, Loyala College v. The State of Tamil Nadu). In the said judgment, a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in (2001) 3 M.L.J. 433 (Thirumuruga Kirupananda Variyar Thavathiru Sundara Swamingal, Medical, Educational and Charitable Trust, Salem v. State of Tamil Nadu), was followed. Paragraph-5 of the said judgment reported in (2001) 3 M.L.J. 433 runs thus: "... In the said judgment, a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in (2001) 3 M.L.J. 433 (Thirumuruga Kirupananda Variyar Thavathiru Sundara Swamingal, Medical, Educational and Charitable Trust, Salem v. State of Tamil Nadu), was followed. Paragraph-5 of the said judgment reported in (2001) 3 M.L.J. 433 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. 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. 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.” 4. Following the said decision of the Honourable Division Bench, this Court also allowed similar writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.9453 of 2014 dated 04.02.2015 and set aside the order impugned therein only insofar as the same restricting the period of minority status for a period of five years only. 5. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 is not disputing all the above said factual aspects of the matter and he further conceded to the fact that the issue involved in these cases is covered by those earlier decisions in favour of the petitioners. 6. 5. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 is not disputing all the above said factual aspects of the matter and he further conceded to the fact that the issue involved in these cases is covered by those earlier decisions in favour of the petitioners. 6. Considering all these facts and circumstances and by following the above earlier decisions of this Court, all these Writ Petitions are allowed and the impugned orders insofar as the portion restricting the minority status of the respective petitioners only for a period of five years are set aside. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed.