VINAYAK HARI KULKARNI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ Petition No. 6408 of 2006 came to be filed by Shri Satish Dattatray Nadgauda challenging the legality and propriety of the Government Resolutions dated 25/11/2005 and 29/7/2006 and these GRs pertain to the revised criteria for regularizing the posts other than teachers in the private partial/whole time granted secondary, higher secondary schools, classes of higher secondary/Junior Colleges, military schools in the State of Maharashtra. During the course of hearing of this petition, notices were issued to the State Government as to why the English translations of these GRs were not made available as is required under Article 348 of the Constitution of India. The Chief Secretary filed an affidavit and pointed out that the State Legislature has enacted the Maharashtra Official Languages Act, 1964 and Marathi is the language used for "all official purposes" referred to in Article 345 of the Constitution. It was also pointed out that in compliance with the requirements of Article 348(3) of the Constitution, the Governor of Maharashtra had issued an order on 30/9/1995 authorizing the Secretary or his delegate in the Department of Law and Judiciary as well as the Administrative Department concerned to publish in the Official Gazette the translations in English language of the authoritative text of all such documents. This explanation was accepted by the Division Bench.

(2.) The Division Bench took over one more issue suo moto and issued notice to the Registrar General of this Court calling upon him to file an affidavit as to why the proceedings in the court, including writ petitions filed, were not in the English language considering the practice notes issued from time to time. The court's attention was invited by the Registry to Rule 2 of Chapter XVII of the Bombay High Court, Appellate Side Rules, 1960. The Registrar General filed an affidavit and stated that the Appellate Side Rules were framed under Section 122 of the Civil Procedure Code and all other enabling powers in that behalf. The attention of the court was also invited to the practice notes issued from time to time as directed by the Hon"ble the Chief Justice. This court referred to Section 20 of the Goa, Daman & Diu Reorganisation Act, 1987 and held that provios to Rule 2(i) of the Bombay High Court, Appellate Side Rules is ultra virus Article 348(1)(a) of the Constitution and declared the said Rule as null and void, vide its judgemnt dated 3/5/2007 in the case of Satish Dattatray Nadgauda vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. [2007 (4) Mh.L.J. 475] and issued the following directions by way of interim arrangement:

(3.) Rule 2 in Chapter XVII of the Appellate Sides Rules 1960 reads as under:-