IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 22ND JANUARY 2009 / 2ND MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 35257 of 2008(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- CATHOLIC LAYMENS ASSOCIATION REG.NO.S 76/98 KOODARANJI, KOZHIKODE, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY M.L.GEORGE, MALIYEKKAL(NJALOOR S/O.LATE LUKA, MALIYEKKAL HOUSE, KOODARANJI PO., KOODARANJI AMSOM DESOM. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) RESPONDENT: 1 ---------------- NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR MINORITIES LOK NAIK BHAVAN KHAN MARKET, NEW DELHI-110 003, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. BY SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR GENERAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P(C).No. 35257 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed by an organisation called “Catholic Laymens Association”. They have filed Ext.P1 complaint before the Secretary, National Minority Commission, New Delhi arraying the Bishops of Kerala as opposite parties and praying that the authority may reject the applications made by the respondents claiming protection under Article 30 of the Constitution and also to revoke any declaration that may have been made holding the institutions run by respondents in Ext.P1 complaint as minority institutions. 2. First of all, none of the opposite parties in Ext.P1 have been arrayed in the writ petition as respondents. Secondly, the allegation raised in the writ petition is that the funds that are generated in the organisation of which the opposite parties in Ext.P1 are functionaries are not being used for the desired purposes. In my view, even if there is substance in the allegation raised by the petitioners, they does not mean that the community, which the respondents in Ext.P1 represents will cease to be a minority community, if that are W.P.C.No. 35257 OF 2008 -:2:- otherwise eligible to be so. 3. Therefore, I am not prepared to direct that Ext.P1 should be considered by the respondent. Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) ttb