JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned notice of the 2nd respondent Director of Collegiate Education in Na.Ka.No.47277/R3/2015 dated 24.06.2016, quash the same and further direct the respondents 1 and 2 to consider forthwith petitioner's application dated 09.11.2015 seeking Minority Status.) 1. The challenge in the writ petition is to the show cause notice issued by the Directorate of Collegiate Education requiring the petitioner to show cause as to why the permission granted to run Annai Velankanni College should not be cancelled. The background facts which lead to the filing of the writ petition are as follows: 2. Eleven Roman Catholic Priests joined together and started a Society called Friends of Kottar and got it registered. The said society started the educational institution called Annai Velankanni College offering various Arts and Science programmes. Permission was granted to the said college by the Directorate of Collegiate Education. Subsequently, the Roman Catholic Priests who had formed the Society named as Friends of Kottar joined with certain Academicians and formed another Society called Annai Velankanni Administrative Society, which was to look after the day to day running of the College. This was done because the members of the original Society were mostly clergymen and they were not very well acquainted with running of educational institutions. 3. The new Society viz., Annai Velankanni Administrative Society applied to the Government for grant of minority status on 09.10.2001. Since the said application was not disposed of a writ petition was filed in this Court in W.P.No.6564 of 2002 which came to be allowed on 28.02.2002 with a direction to the Government to consider the claim of the petitioner and pass orders. Subsequent there to, the Government passed G.O.(1D) No.47 dated 04.03.2004 rejecting the request of the Society, on the ground that the applicant Society viz., Annai Velankanni Administrative Society had not established the college and therefore, even though all of its members belonged to a religious minority, the college cannot be conferred the status of minority Institution. This order was challenged in W.P.No.13153 of 2004 by the College. 4. The said writ petition came to be dismissed by this Court on 17.04.2013. The college filed W.A.No.1975 of 2013 challenging the dismissal of the writ petition. This order was challenged in W.P.No.13153 of 2004 by the College. 4. The said writ petition came to be dismissed by this Court on 17.04.2013. The college filed W.A.No.1975 of 2013 challenging the dismissal of the writ petition. During the pendency of the said writ appeal the two Societies viz., Friends of Kottar Society and Annai Velankanni Administrative Society were merged under one umbrella called Friends of Kottar Society. The new Society made an application for grant of minority status. The writ appeal was disposed of permitting the petitioner to workout its rights. Pending the application for grant of minority status made by the merged Society, the Government appears to have directed the Directorate of Collegiate Education to take action against the college for cancelling the permission granted. Pursuant to the said direction issued by the Government on 29.04.2016, the Directorate of Collegiate Education had issued the impugned show cause notice on 24.06.2016. It is this notice which is challenged by the petitioner. 5. Mr.P.Godson Swaminath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that despite the fact that the Society had sent a reply on 05.07.2016 to the show cause notice dated 24.06.2016, no action has been taken by the respondents till filing of the writ petition on 10.01.2017. He would also point out that the very premise on which the show cause notice has been issued is untenable. According to the learned counsel filing a reply by the society and allowing the Directorate of Collegiate Education to pass order will be an exercise in futility in the case on hand, because the very show cause notice came to be issued at the instance of the Government. 6. The learned counsel would further point out that the claims made in the show cause notice itself are incorrect inasmuch as subsequent merger of the two societies has not been taken into account by the Authority. The learned counsel would further point out keeping its application for grant of minority status pending, the Government has directed action against the society, which according to him, is bad in law. 7. Contending contra Mr.P.Anandakumar, learned Government Advocate would submit that the original Society which formed the college never applied for grant of minority status and there have been violation of conditions prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.270 dated 17.06.1998. 7. Contending contra Mr.P.Anandakumar, learned Government Advocate would submit that the original Society which formed the college never applied for grant of minority status and there have been violation of conditions prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.270 dated 17.06.1998. He would further point out that it is alleged that the Society has been admitting more than 50% of the students belonging to the minority community and therefore there is violation of conditions stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.270 dated 17.06.1998. He would also point out the claim made to the effect that the original Society which formed college viz., Friends of Kottar society has parted with the college in favour of Annai Velankanni Administrative Committee without permission of the Government and therefore the permission is liable to be cancelled and the Directorate of Collegiate Education was justified in issuing the show cause notice. The learned Government Advocate would also contend that the Society has challenged the show cause notice and hence the writ petition is pre-mature. 8. I have considered the rival submissions. No doubt, it is the show cause notice which is under challenge. But, this show cause notice has been issued by the Directorate of Collegiate Education pursuant to the direction issued by the Government. The Government while examining the question as to whether the Institution should be given a religious minority ststus or not had directed the Directorate of Collegiate Education to take action against the college. 9. The Directorate of Collegiate Education on its own did not deem it fit to take any action against the Society or the College. When the Annai Velankanni Administrative Society sought for recognition as minority Institution that was rejected by the Government on the ground that it had not established the college and such rejection was upheld by this Court. Pending appeal against the said decision of this Court, the Societies were merged and brought under one umbrella. An Administrative Committee was formed to look after day to day administration of the College. Therefore, the Government ought to have considered the question as to whether the college must be given a status of minority Institution or not before ever going into the question of administration of the Society. Instead of performing its function of conferring minority status, the Government had chosen to direct the Directorate of Collegiate Education to take action against the College. This in my opinion is uncalled for. Instead of performing its function of conferring minority status, the Government had chosen to direct the Directorate of Collegiate Education to take action against the College. This in my opinion is uncalled for. By doing this the Government has effectively postponed the consideration of the claim for minority status by the college for more than 8 years now. 10. Further the premise on which the action has been recommended itself is not acceptable. G.O.Ms.No.270 dated 17.06.1998 requires a self-financing educational Institution imparting professional courses should admit students of that minority alone not exceeding 50% of the sanctioned strength. The remaining 50% should be kept open for others. This cannot be applied to Arts and Science colleges. Even with reference to this 50%, a Division Bench of this Court had in Federation of the catholic Faithful Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu reported in 2014 (4) CTC 432 has held that in view of Section 2(d) of the Tamil Nadu Act 12 of 2006 and by virtue of Article 15(5) of the Constitution of India minority educational Institutions cannot be compelled to abide by the reservation policy of the State. 11. Subsequently in respect of professional colleges also the Government has entered into an agreement that private managements providing for 65% quota for private managements and 35% quota for the Government therefore, this 50% cap prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.270 cannot be any longer valid. 12. The other ground on which the action is sought to be taken is that the Society is being run by an independent Committee. This overlooks the very foundation of the claim of the petitioner. No doubt, there were two Societies, one which established the college called Friends of Kottar and the other which was formed to manage the college called Annai Velankanni Administrative Society. It is not in dispute that both these Societies were merged and brought under one umbrella called Friends of Kottar Society. The Members of Friends of Kottar Society formed a smaller Committee from among themselves in order to look after day to day administration of the college. By no stretch of imagination can it be said that the administration of the college has been parted away to another independent entity. There is nothing wrong in members of the society forming a smaller committee to look after the day to day affairs of the Institution run by the Society. 13. By no stretch of imagination can it be said that the administration of the college has been parted away to another independent entity. There is nothing wrong in members of the society forming a smaller committee to look after the day to day affairs of the Institution run by the Society. 13. I therefore find that the very show cause notice has been issued without any basis and on wrong assumptions and surmises. The counter filed by the Directorate of Collegiate Education, particularly paragraph 12 proceeds on the footing that there are two societies. The fact that the societies have been merged has been totally overlooked by the Directorate of Collegiate Education. 14. The further contention is that the college has admitted more than 50% of minority students and therefore there has been a contravention of Government orders. As of today, in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Federation of the catholic Faithful Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu reported in 2014 (4) CTC 432, it is clear that the rules of reservation cannot be applied to a minority institution and they are free to admit students according to their choice. Hence, the main grounds on which the show cause notice has been issued do not survive any longer. 15. I am therefore of the opinion that the show cause notice is liable to be quashed and it is accordingly quashed. The writ petition will stand allowed. There will be a direction to the Government to dispose of the application filed by the petitioner Society seeking minority status within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.