Civil Appeal Nos
463 and464 of 1986
From the Judgment and Order dated 611
1984 of the Patna High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 3489 of 1981  601 of 1982
M Qamaruddin and Mrs M Qamaruddin for the Appellant
SN Misra MK Jha and PC Kapur for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 401 SINGH J
These two appeals are directed against the judgment and order of High Court of Patna dated November 6 1989 quashing the order of the Bihar State Madarasa Educa tion Board dissolving the Managing Committee of the respond ent s institution
The State Legislature of Bihar enacted the Bihar State Madarasa Education Board Act Act 32 of 1982 providing for the constitution of an autonomous Board for development and supervision of Madarasa education in the State of Bihar
Madarasa as defined by Section 2 means an educational institution providing instructions in Islamic Arabic and Persian studies and recognised as such by the Board
The Board  means the Board established under Sec 3 of the Act
Section 3 provides for the constitution of State Madarasa Education Board which is a body corporate with perpetual succession and a common seal
The Board consists of a Chair man appointed by the State Government Director of Education Incharge of Oriental Education Director Institution of Post graduate Studies and Research in Arabic and Persian Patna the Principal Madarasa Islamia Shamsul Hoda Patna Chairman Bihar Sunni Wakf Board Patna Chairman Bihar Shia Wakf Board Patna two members of the State Legislature nominated by the Government having interest in Madarasa Education or Islamic studies two senior teachers of recog nised Madarasa nominated by the State Government and three other members nominated by the State Government who have interest in Madarasa education or Islamic studies
The Board is invested with powers and functions to provide for in struction and research in Arabic Persian and Islamic stud ies and to advise the State Government on all matters relat ing to Madarasa education
The Act empowers the Board to direct supervise and control Madarasa education to grant recognition to Madarasas in accordance with the regulations framed by it to conduct different Madarasa examination to publish results to make regulations prescribing conditions of employees of the Board to provide for the constitution of the Managing Committee to constitute academic committee recognition committee examination committee and for carry ing on its powers and functions in regulating the education in Madarasa institutions
The Board is headed by a Chairman nominated by the State Government under Sec
102 of the Act it lays down that no person shall be eligible for appointment as Chairman unless he holds adequate administra tive experience under the Central or State Government and he has teaching or research experience for not less than 10 years in post graduate educational institutions or he is regarded scholar in Arabic Persian Islamic studies and he is interested in Madarasa education
The Board as constitut ed by the 402 Act is an autonomous body entrusted with the duty to grant recognition aid supervise and control the academic effi ciency in the Madarasa institutions aided and recognised by it
The members of the Board consist of those persons who are connected with or interested in the teaching and re search of Arabic Persian and Islamic studies and interest ed in the Madarasa education
The Legislature has enacted the Act with the primary purpose of providing an autonomous educational authority for regulating the efficiency of Madarasa institutions where studies are carried on in Ara bic Persian and Islamic studies
The Hanfia Arabic College Jamalia and Madarasa Shamsul Uloom the respondent s institutions are Madarasa institu tions aided and recognised by the Board under the provisions of the Act as such the respondent s institutions are sub ject to the provisions of the Act and the regulations framed by the Board in matters relating to their management and administration
The Committees of Management of the two respondent institutions failed to comply with the directions issued by the Board with regard to payment of salary to teachers whereupon the Board in exercise of its power under Section 72n of the Act dissolved the Managing Committee of the respondent s institution and appointed ad hoc Commit tee to manage the institutions
The outgoing Managing Com mittee of the respondent s institutions and some of the affected members of the Committee filed writ petitions before the High Court of Patna under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the Order of the Board dissolving the Committee of Management and appointing ad hoc Committee
Before the High Court the respondents submitted that Sec
72n of the Act which confers power on the Board to dissolve Managing Committee of a Madarasa is violative of Article 301 of the Constitution as it interfered with their right of management of institutions
The High Court upheld the respondent s plea and declared Sec
72n unconstitutional as it confers power on the Board to dis solve Committee of Management of a Madarasa
The Board has preferred this appeal by leave against the aforesaid judg ment of the High Court
Section 72n reads thus 7
Power and functions of the Board 1 It shall be the duty of the Board to provide for instruction and research in Arabic Persian and Islamic studies and such other branches of knowledge including vocational courses and training which the Board thinks fit and to advise the State Government on all other matters relating to Madarasa Education
403 2 Subject to the provisions of this Act and the Rules and Regulations made thereunder the Board shall have the power to direct super vise and control Madarasa Education and in particular have the powers n To get the Managing Committee of Madarasas constituted in a manner such as to include the Head Maulvi two guardians  representatives and one member nominated by the Board and two other persons interested in Madarasa Education or Islamic studies to be composed by the above seven members
The power to dissolve the Managing Committee shall vest in the Board
 The above provision confers power on the Board to pro vide for constitution and dissolution of Managing Committee of a Madarasa
There is no dispute that the respondent Madarasas are educational institutions established by the Muslim minority community
Article 301 of the Constitution protects the right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice
The Article in terms grants all minorities two rights i the right to establish and ii the right to administer educational institution of their choice
The rights so granted are however not absolute a minority institution obtaining financial aid and recognition is subject to reasonable restrictions to ensure excellence in the institution
While minorities have a constitutional right to establish and to administer educational institutions of their choice they have no absolute right to maladminister the State has right to impose regulations made in the interest of efficiency of institution s discipline health sanitation and public order even though such regulations may indirectly impinge on the exclusive right of administration and management of the institution
A minority institution seeking aid and recogni tion must be subject to regulatory provisions which are reasonable and consistent with Article 301 of the Consti tution
A minority institution which does not seek aid or recognition from the State or the Education Board need not be subject to regulatory provisions
These principles have been settled by this Court in re Kerala Education Bill 1957 1959 SCR 995 Sidharajbhai vs State of Gujarat     and  The question which arises for consideration is whether Section 72n which confers power on the Board to dissolve the managing 404 committee of an aided and recognised Madarasa institution violates the minorities constitutional right to administer its educational institution according to their choice
This Court has all along held that though the minorities have right to establish and administer educational institution of their own choice but they have no right to maladminister and the State has power to regulate management and administra tion of such institutions in the interest of educational need and discipline of the institution
Such regulation may have indirect effect on the absolute right of minorities but that would not violate article 301 of the Constitution as it is the duty of the State to ensure efficiency in educational institutions
The State has however no power to completely take over the management of a minority institution
Under the guise of the regulating the educational standards to secure efficiency in institution the State is not entitled to frame rules or regulations compelling the management to surrender right of administration
In State of Kerala vs Very Rev Mother Provincial etc
 1971 I SCR 734 Section 031 of the Kerala University Act 1969 which conferred power on the Government to take over the management of a minority institution on its default in carrying out the directions of the State Government was declared ultra vires on the ground that the provisions interfered with the con stitutional right of a minority to administer its institu tion
Minority institutions cannot be allowed to fall below the standard of excellence on the pretext of their exclusive right of management but at the same time their constitution al right to administer their institutions cannot be com pletely taken away by superseding or dissolving managing committee or by appointing ad hoc committees in place there of
In the instant case Section 72n is clearly violative of constitutional fight of minorities under Article 301 of the Constitution in so far as it provides for dissolution of managing committee of a Madarasa
We agree with the view taken by the High Court
We have upheld the view taken by the High Court with regard to the validity of Section 72n of the Act but we do not agree with the observations made by the High Court in paragraphs 9 and 10 of its judgment with regard to the constitution of the Board and appointment of its Chairman
The High Court has observed that the majority of the members of the Board and its Chairman may not belong to minority community therefore the Board s constitution will not be in consonance with the minorities constitutional right under Article 30 of the Constitution
In our opinion the view taken by the High Court is not correct
Article 301 does not contemplate that an autonomous Educational Board en trusted with the duty of regulating the aided and 405 recognised minorities institution should be constituted only by persons belonging to minority community
Article 301 protects the minorities right to manage and administer institutions established by them according to their choice but while seeking aid and recognition for their institutions there is no constitutional obligation that the Board grant ing aid or recognition or regulating efficiency in minority institution should consist of members exclusively belonging to minority communities
In the instant case the constitu tion of the Board under Section 3 of the Act ensures that its members are only those who are interested in teaching and research of Persian Arabic and Islamic studies
This provision fully safeguards the interest of Madarasa of the Muslim community
We therefore hold that observations made by the High Court in paragraphs 8 and 9 of its judgment are contrary to the scope of Article 301 of the Constitution
With these observations we agree with the view taken by the High Court in quashing the order of the Board dissolving the managing committee of the respondent s institutions and appointing ad hoc committee
The appeals fail and are ac cordingly dismissed
There will be no order as to costs
PSS Appeals dismissed


Summary:
The appellant assessee has been manufacturing cushion repair compoud tread repair compound and cover compound
According to the assessee these were not meant either for resoling or retreading of tyres but for mending injured and defective sections of tyres
Though normally these goods are dutiable under tariff item No 16A2 the assessee claimed exemption from duty under Notification No 71 of 1968 dated 1468
The Superintendent rejected the claim
On appeal by the assessee the Collector observed that there was no evidence that the goods in question should not be used for the resoling or retreading of tyres and rejected the claim
The assessee preferred a revision to the Central Govt
The Central Govt
while rejecting the Revision Peti tion referred to the fact that the notification specifical ly excluded cushion compound cushion gum and tread gum
As regards cover cushion compound it observed that the compo sition was such that its use for repair of conveyor belts was indistinguishable from the other use of resoling of tyres
This appeal has been filed against the order of the Central Govt
The appellant contended that the Government had overlooked the fact that while tread repair cushion compound and tread gum are items used for resoling or re treading of tyres that was not the use to which the arti cles manufactured by the assessee were put
Since the fact that the goods manufactured by it were employed only for repairing tyres and conveyor belts was not disbelieved it was argued the assessee was eligible for the exemption claimed by it
Allowing the appeal this court HELD 1
The notification of 1978 only reproduces with some 371 modifications the notification of 1964
The broad purport of both the notifications is to exempt rubber products other than those which are commonly sold under certain descrip tions and are used for the resoling or retreading of tyres
The circular of 1966 which can be considered as a contempo raneous exposition of the understanding of the Government while issuing the exemption notification of 1964 makes it clear that at that time it was not intended to deny exemp tion to rubber products used merely for repair purposes
The notification of 1973 was one in which various amendments were carried out to a series of notifications relating to various items and does not contain anything to suggest that it was only a clarification that was intended to be given and not a prospective amendment of the previous notifica tion
375A C 21 The fact that the appellant is using or marketing the products for use only for repearing tyres and conveyor belts is not controverted
Hence the appellant assessee was entitled to exemption under the notification
In one sense any rubber compound has a composition which theoretically permits it to be used either for repair purposes or for resoling or retreading of tyres
But the assessee s claim is that the product marketed by it has not the physical dimen sions or technical properties to be capable of use for retreading or resoling
Also the notification talks of products used for resoling and retreading of tyres and it is not so in the instant case
375C E 22 The notification imports a limitation on the exclu sion from the exemption specified in the paranthetical clause of the notification
That exclusion is only in re spect of compounds used for resoling or retreading
375E