JUDGMENT : 1. Sri. Jenny John, a member of the minority community, namely, Christian denomination, approached the Minority Commission, a commission constituted under the Kerala State Commission for Minorities Act, 2014. His complaint was that the Revenue Authorities are refusing to issue certain revenue documents to him. These documents are required for the purpose of quarrying. The Commission entertained the complaint and passed Ext.P10 order by directing the Tahsildar, Thrissur and the Village Officer, Mulayam to issue revenue documents sought by him within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. This order is impugned in this writ petition by the State and their officials. 2. This Court is called upon to decide the question of jurisdiction of minority commission to issue such order. The learned Special Government Pleader by referring to Section 9 of the Kerala State Commission for Minorities Act, 2014, argued that the Commission abdicated his power while issuing the impugned order. 3. The learned counsel for the second respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the second respondent was denied these documents merely for the reason that he belongs to a minority community. 4. The Constitution of our country envisages protection to the minority. These protections are accorded to them to ensure the sense of security and treatment at par with the majority. It is to achieve the constitutional goal and to safeguard them from possible discrimination, the State enacted the Kerala State Commission for Minorities Act, 2014. In its preamble it is stated that the Commission is constituted for the purpose of comprehensive educational advancement, welfare, protection empowerment of minority and to provide for incidental thereto. 5. It may be true that the claim for documents from the Revenue Department is related to the economic aspiration of an individual member of the community. But that does not mean it has the colour of protection as envisaged under the Constitution. The very idea of constituting the Commission is to ensure that the minority community is protected. In such circumstances, such rights must be available to him as a member of the community rather than claiming as an individual who happened to be a member of the community. A collective right conferred upon the community also can be claimed by an individual concerned, provided, the claim is derived from the collective nature of rights or benefits conferred upon such community. A collective right conferred upon the community also can be claimed by an individual concerned, provided, the claim is derived from the collective nature of rights or benefits conferred upon such community. If such a claim is made, the individual who happened to be a minority, it cannot have any bearing in the matter, unless it is shown that it was denied and deprived for the reason that he belongs to a minority. This is so clear from the functions delineated under the Act(See Section 9). It all speaks about the collective development of minorities. Therefore, the Act conceived an idea of the development of minority as a class and it is only such right as available to class to the status of the minority that would enure to such member and not pursuing his own individual goals for his own developments. In such circumstances, I am of the considered view that the Commission overstepped in the issue and decided the matter. It is to be noted that the revenue has a case that the land was assigned for agricultural purposes and the second respondent was denied those documents as he attempted to convert the land for non-agricultural purposes. Such question whether he is entitled to use the land for other purposes cannot be decided by the Minority Commission. The dominant issue, in such circumstances, the right use of the particular land and not on the status of the applicant. That be so, the impugned order has to be set aside. Accordingly, it is set aside, leaving open all issues urged by the second respondent in regard to the entitlement to obtain revenue documents. That remedy can still be pursued in an appropriate manner. With liberty as above, the impugned order is quashed. The writ petition is disposed of as above.