LAXMAN OMANNA BHAMANE Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this petition has sought for a declaration that the provisions of Section 23, read with Rule 24-A of the Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1963 is ultra vires of Article 30 of the Constitution of India and also for a declaration that the pamphlets issued by the deputy Commissioner and the Kannada Development Authority are illegal and void being contrary to Article 30 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) THE petitioner is a commission agent and engaged in the business at Belgaum. The case of the petitioner is, that most of his customers are marathi speaking people and if he is asked to display his name board on the shop in Kannada as required under Rule 24-A of the Karnataka shops and Commercial Establishments Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules'), his customers will not be in a position to identify his shop and consequently he would suffer loss in his business. The further case of the petitioner is that since the Marathi speaking people in Belgaum District forms a linguistic minority and any insistence to display the Board in Kannada is hit by Article 30 of the Constitution of India. Article 30 of the Constitution deals with the right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions. When this fact was brought to the notice of Sri C. R. Goulay, learned Counsel for the petitioner he submits that by mistake Article 30 has been mentioned in the writ petition, but in fact it should be read as Article 29 of the Constitution. After seeing Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution, I am satisfied that there is some mistake in mentioning Article 30 in place of Article 29 and therefore I permitted the learned Counsel to substantiate how Rule 24-A of the Rules is ultra vires of Article 29 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) ACCORDING to Sri C. R. Goulay, learned Counsel for the petitioner, article 29 deals with the protection of the interests of minorities and under this Article any section of the citizens having a distinct language, script or culture of its own shall have the right to conserve the same. Rule 24-A of the Rules provides that the name board of every establishment shall be in Kannada and therefore if he is asked to display the name board of the shop in Kannada, the petitioner will not be in a position to conserve Marathi language since Marathi speaking people in certain taluks in Belgaum form a minority as their population is less than 15% of the total population in that area.