JUDGMENT : 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 18.01.2017, passed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the Writ Petition No.8577 of 2015, with certain observations, the writ petitioner therein is in appeal. 2. The plea of the petitioner is that, it is a Trust registered under the Indian Trust Act. That it is a ‘linguistic minorities institution’ and runs various other institutions. That various litigations have ensued with regard to such a linguistic status. In such a process, the petitioner institution made an application seeking recognition of the institution as a ‘linguistic minority institution’, in terms of the applications vide AnnexuresV and V1, dated 03.11.2014. 3. The same had not received any consideration by the respondents. Notwithstanding the same, the impugned order dated 16.02.2015, has been issued by respondent No.5, directing the petitioner to complete admitting students who have applied online mode in accordance with the RTE Act for the period of 20152016. The same was questioned before the learned Single Judge. By the impugned order dated 18.01.2017, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.8577 of 2015 and connected matters, the writ petition was disposed off in terms thereof. 4. The primary plea of Sri.A.S.Ponnana, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant’s counsel is to the effect that when pending applications seeking ‘linguistic minority status’ is pending consideration before the respondents, they cannot pass the impugned order on the ground that it is not a ‘minority institution’ and is therefore bound by the provisions of RTE Act. His submission is that being a ‘linguistic minority institution’, they are not bound by the RTE Act. 5. The said contention is disputed by the learned Government Advocate. 6. On hearing learned counsels, we are of the view that appropriate interference is called for. 7. The factum of the petitioner being a ‘linguistic minority institution’ or not, is to be determined by the concerned respondent. The requisite applications having been made before the respondents as far back in the year 2014, the same has not been considered by them even as on date. Therefore, until and unless the applications are considered, the respondent-State cannot insist on the petitioner to resort to admissions under the RTE Act. This we are of the view would be a gross injustice to the petitioner. Therefore, until and unless the applications are considered, the respondent-State cannot insist on the petitioner to resort to admissions under the RTE Act. This we are of the view would be a gross injustice to the petitioner. The petitioner claims to be a ‘linguistic minority institution’ and is therefore entitled for the benefits under the prevailing law. Until and unless the applications of the petitioner vide Annexures-V and V1 are considered, the respondents cannot insist on the provisions of RTE Act being made enforceable against the writ petitioner-institution. Therefore, we are of the view that the impugned annexure vide Annexure-Z to the writ petition, would not stand to reason. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge dated 18.01.2017, passed in Writ petition No.8577 of 2016 insofar as the petitioner-institution is concerned is setaside. The impugned communication dated 16.02.2015, passed by the fifth respondent vide Annexure-Z is also setaside.