ORDER : L. Narayana Swamy, J. Petitioner-institutions have preferred these petitions and the common prayer made in these petitions is for quashing of the Government order 18th June, 2014 passed in No. ED 27 MAHITI 2012(baga 1) which is made applicable to the petitioner-institutions, as arbitrary since the petitioner-institutions are minority institutions for the purpose of Article 30 of the Constitution of India. The Competent Authority to issue Minority status certificate is the authority constituted under the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as 'the NCMEI Act' for short). Though petitioner-institutions have made applications to the said authority long back, so far the status certificate has not been issued. It is also the case of the petitioner-institutions that the applications said to have been made by the Linguistic Minority Institutions for issuance of status certificate have not been processed by the authority. 2. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Counsel for the petitioner-institutions submits that it is the responsibility of the Central Government under the NCMFI Act to issue Minority status certificate and since the authority has not considered the applications of the petitioner-institutions, under the circumstance insisting of admitting the students recommended by the Government under Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as 'the RTE Act' for short), which constitutes 25% of the total strength of the petitioner-institutions is arbitrary, unconstitutional and violation of Article 30 of the Constitution of India. In respect of issuance of minority status certificate to the petitioner-institutions, the learned Senior Counsel submits that this Court in Writ Petition No. 10402 of 2014 disposed of on 30th April, 2014, by relying on the submission of the learned Advocate General that until determination of the minority status to the petitioner-institutions, implementation of the RTE Act cannot be done to the petitioner-institutions and hence insisting the petitioner-institutions for admission of students sponsored by the Government under RTE Act is arbitrary. Hence, the learned Senior Counsel submits that the judgment of this Court is binding, since the Government itself has made such submission through the learned Advocate General of the State. Hence, the learned Senior Counsel submits that the judgment of this Court is binding, since the Government itself has made such submission through the learned Advocate General of the State. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that even without issuance of any status certificate, the petitioner-institutions are minority institutions for the purpose of Article 30 of the Constitution of India and as long as that issue is resolved and decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the insistence of admission of students under RTE Act is unfair and arbitrary and hence the same is to be set aside. 3. This Court on 17th October, 2016 passed an interim order wherein it was brought to the notice of the Court that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that in respect of the minority educational institutions both aided and un-aided a relook by the Constitutional Bench is necessary and accordingly has issued notice to all the Schools under RTE Act, 2009; and therefore, deferred all these matters till the decision to be taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the light of the said order dated 17th October, 2016, till the matter is re-looked and an order is passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the insistence of filling up of 25% of the total strength by accommodating the students sponsored by Government under the RTE Act, 2009 shall not be done and hence it is submitted that there shall be a direction to the respondent Government not to insist for filling of 25% of seats by admitting the students sponsored by Government under RTE Act, 2009. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 10401 of 2014 submits that the Commissioner of Public Instructions has communicated the order declaring that the petitioner-institution is a Tulu speaking linguistic minority institution and hence, this institution cannot come under RTE Act, 2009. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 4825 and 4824 of 2015, 6276 to 6283 of 2013 and 3773 of 2014 submits that the petitioner-institutions are Sindhi and Telugu speaking institutions and hence are linguistic minority institutions in nature. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 4825 and 4824 of 2015, 6276 to 6283 of 2013 and 3773 of 2014 submits that the petitioner-institutions are Sindhi and Telugu speaking institutions and hence are linguistic minority institutions in nature. In order to claim the status of linguistic minority institution, the learned Counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others (2002)8 SCC 481 and referred to paragraph 184 of the judgment. 6. In Writ Petition Nos. 51306 and 51307 of 2015, 7411 and 7412 of 2016, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-institutions submits that the institution is a Telugu speaking minority institution and they are not covered for the purpose of RTE Act. 7. It is further submitted that the RTE Act is a State legislation, whereas the Linguistic Minority Act is under Article 30 of the Constitution of India. When such is the constitutional guarantee, the petitioner-institutions are not liable for admitting the students under the provisions of RTE Act. 8. Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State submits that as long as the petitioner-institutions are not in possession of status certificates issued by the Competent Authority, they are bound to admit the students under RTE Act, 2009. The said Act came into force by virtue of amendment made under Article 21-A of the Constitution of India. He submits that most of the institutions are not in possession of any status certificate issued by the Competent Authority, however, they claim that they are minority institutions and that is impermissible. In support of his submissions, the learned Additional Advocate General relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P.A. lnamdar and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Others (2005)6 SCC 537 and places reliance on 102 of the judgment. 9. In these petitions, Smt. Jayne Kothari, the learned Counsel, is permitted to appear as intervener to make submissions. She submits that as per Section 10(1) of the NCMEI Act, the minority education institution, in order to establish that status, may apply to the Competent Authority for grant of no objection certificate for the said purpose. 9. In these petitions, Smt. Jayne Kothari, the learned Counsel, is permitted to appear as intervener to make submissions. She submits that as per Section 10(1) of the NCMEI Act, the minority education institution, in order to establish that status, may apply to the Competent Authority for grant of no objection certificate for the said purpose. She also refers to sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the NCMEI Act the Competent Authority shall: (a) on perusal of documents, affidavits or other evidence, if any; and (b) after giving an opportunity of being heard to the applicant, decide every application filed under sub-section (1) as expeditiously as possible and grant or reject the application, as the case may be. The learned Counsel referred to Section 2(ca) of the NCMEI Act, which defines "Competent Authority". According to the Act, 'Competent Authority' means the authority appointed by the appropriate Government to grant no objection certificate for the establishment of any educational institution of their choice by the minorities. She further refers to Section 2(aa) of the NCMEI Act which provides for appropriate Government. "Appropriate Government" means (i) in relation to an educational institution recognised for conducting its programmes of studies under any Act of Parliament, the Central Government; and (ii) in relation to any other educational institution recognised for conducting its programmes of studies under any State Act, a State Government in whose jurisdiction such institution is established. Any State Act of respective State Governments in whose jurisdiction such institutions fall is to be established. Referring to the definition clause, the learned Counsel submits that it depends upon the nature of education conducted by such institutions and they may make application either to the State Government in case of State education and to the Central Government in case of Central education. When the Act clarifies the position about the Competent Authority without giving any scope for confusion, unnecessarily the petitioner-institutions have approached this Court instead of approaching the Competent Authority. 10. The learned Central Government Standing Counsel submits that for the purpose of minority, the NCMEI Act defines that the institution is the one which is notified as such by the Central Government. Further, he submits that Section 2(g) of the NCMEI Act defines Minority Educational Institution which means a college or an educational institution established and administered by a minority or minorities. Further, he submits that Section 2(g) of the NCMEI Act defines Minority Educational Institution which means a college or an educational institution established and administered by a minority or minorities. He further submits that in order to obtain status of minority, the institution should approach the Central Government. 11. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner-institutions; the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State, the learned Central Government Standing Counsel; and Smt Jayne Kothari, the learned Intervener. 12. By 86th Amendment Act 2002, Article 21-A was inserted to the Constitution of India i.e. Right to Education, in which the State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years in such manner as the State may, by law, determine. Without education to children, right to speech will be of no avail. In order to comply with the mandate of this Article, Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 was brought into effect by the Government of Karnataka. As per this, 25% of the total seats in the educational institutions have to be filled up by admitting the students who are recommended by Competent Authority under RTE Act, 2009. This effort has been made in order to comply it to the fullest meaning of Article 19(l)(a) of the Constitution of India, i.e. freedom of speech and expression. Merely providing fundamental right of speech and express minus producing education would go futile. In the light of the above, this amendment was brought to the Constitution of India resulting in bringing into force RTE Act, 2009. When such is the provision of law, the constitutional mandate of educational institution which have been approved by State or Central Government are invariably made to reserve 25% of its total strength for admission to the students who are recommended by the respective Governments under RTE Act. These 25% students are the one who belong to economically weaker and backward sections of the Society. 13. The case of the institutions which are petitioners herein is that they are linguistic minority institutions. It is true that Article 30 of the Constitution of India provides constitutional status to the minority institutions and also provides privilege and immunity, viz. that the State Act or Municipal Act are not applicable to the Minority Institutions. 13. The case of the institutions which are petitioners herein is that they are linguistic minority institutions. It is true that Article 30 of the Constitution of India provides constitutional status to the minority institutions and also provides privilege and immunity, viz. that the State Act or Municipal Act are not applicable to the Minority Institutions. The submission of the petitioner-institutions that as per RTE Act insisting of 25% of total admission for the students recommended by the respective Governments, is beyond the competence of the State Government. The Linguistic Minority Institutions shall not be brought under the provisions of RTE Act. These institutions are not just Linguistic Minority Institutions, but also religiously minority institutions. The Competent Authority to issue such certificate, has not been clarified and the cases of this nature for implementation of admitting 25% of total strength of the institution by admitting the students recommended by the respective Governments was the subject-matter, as is referred by this Court, which is to be relooked, and accordingly, it is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Unless that is decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court insisting of admitting 25% of the total strength of students that are recommended by the respective Governments is unconstitutional and hence the impugned notification is liable to set aside. It is true that the notification of such notification is to be struck down. But, the question is whether any of these petitioner-institutions are in possession of the minority status certificate issued by the Competent Authority? I have gone through every paper produced in the petition and could see that none of the petitioners have produced status certificate. It is also not their case that there cases have been turned down by the Competent Authority. 14. The submission of the respondent-Government is that, as long as and until the certificate of minority status is provided, the petitioner-institutions are bound to admit 25% of the students sponsored under the RTE Act, 2009. The Competent Authority, for the purpose of issuance of such certificate, is defined under Section 10 of the NCMEI Act. The Competent Authority has been defined under Section 2(ca) of the said Act that it is the State Government and the appropriate Government. The Competent Authority, for the purpose of issuance of such certificate, is defined under Section 10 of the NCMEI Act. The Competent Authority has been defined under Section 2(ca) of the said Act that it is the State Government and the appropriate Government. Section 2(aa) of the said Act defines that in relation to an educational institution recognised for conducting its programmes of studies under any Act of Parliament, it is the Central Government; and in relation to any other educational institution recognised for conducting its programmes of studies under any State Act, the State Government has the jurisdiction. When such is the clarity in defining the 'appropriate Government' and the 'Competent Authority', the petitioner-institutions have to obtain minority status certificate either from State Government or from Central Government. Without obtaining the minority status certificate, the petitioner-institutions are making an effort not to admit the students that are recommended by the respective Governments under RTE Act, 2009, and the said Act is not correct. 15. In this background, it is made clear that any institution, before claiming immunity or any privilege for the purpose of Article 30 of the Constitution of India, should be in possession of minority status certificate issued by the Competent Authority or by the appropriate Government. As per the notification, the applications made by the petitioner-institutions to the State Government and the Committee so constituted has to consider the applications and appropriate orders are to be passed in respect of issuance of minority status certificate. In that view of the matter, the Central Government is directed to consider and pass appropriate order for issuance of such certificate. Till such orders are passed or till issuance of minority status certificates, the petitioner-institutions are directed to admit 25% of its total strength by admitting the students who are sponsored under RTE Act for the academic year 2017-18. Whatever may be the confusion or clarification, if any, required and till it is resolved by the Competent Authority, State of Central Government, the petitioners-Institutions are directed to comply with the provisions of RTE Act, 2009, i.e. to give admissions of 25% of the total strength by admitting the students recommended by the respective Government under RTE Act for the academic year 2017-18. 16. 16. Last but not the least, it is to be mentioned that the petitioner-institutions taking shelter of the interim order granted by this Court, has not given admission of 25% of its total strength to the candidates recommended under RTE Act. Now, by dismissal of the said writ petitions, the petitioner-institutions are directed to admit the students who are not admitted by virtue of Interim Order, till it completes 75% of admissions. In view of the fact that 25% of the total strength has to be made to the candidates sponsored under RTE Act, in addition to the regular 25% per year, another 10% of candidates have to be admitted to the petitioner-institutions, till it reaches 75%. The additional 10% is to be treated as backlog. The Court is conscious that if 75% is to be insisted for admissions in one year, the Institutions may find it difficult and hence it is observed that additional 10% to the regular 25% is to be taken for admissions. This shall be complied with, and it is directed that the respondent-Government shall pass necessary circular/orders for recommendation of 10% candidates under RTE Act, as additional backlog seats. 17. The petitioners are also permitted to make another representation to the authorities, if they so desire. Further, it is also directed that the State/Central Governments shall process the applications made/to be made by the petitioner-institutions and to pass appropriate orders, as expeditiously as possible and in any event not later than six months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 18. At this stage, it is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 10401 of 2014 submits that the petitioner-institution is in possession of status certificate issued by the Government of Karnataka. If that is so, then the said petitioner shall not be insisted for admission of 25% students that are recommended by the Government under RTE Act, 2009. 19. Subject to the observations made above, petitions stand disposed of.