VINAYAK HARI KULKARNI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in Writ Petition No. 6597 of 2007 has filed the Writ Petition in respect of various proceedings initiated under the Bombay Inferior Village Watan Abolition Act. Most of the annexures, including the impugned order in the said matters, are in Marathi. The petitioner prepared the Writ Petition and went for the purpose of filing the Writ Petition. However, the petitioner was told by the Registry that unless all annexures or, in any case, the impugned order was translated from Marathi to English, the Petition would not be entertained.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the non acceptance of the Petition because the annexures are not translated into English was an act contrary to the provisions of the Constitution of India. The Registry brought to the notice of the petitioner the judgment and order passed in Writ Petition No. 6408 of 2006 delivered by the High Court (Rebello and Sawant, JJ.) wherein it has been declared that the proviso to Rule 2 (i) of Chapter XVII of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 is ultravires Article 348 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India. In the said judgment, the court directed in paragraph 14 of the said judgment to follow the procedure set out below which is based on the Practice Note issued by the Chief Justice of the High Court. The said Practice Note provides thus : (1) When the Judgment, Order, Government Resolution/circular or Notification or other document under challenge is not in English and when the Advocate/party wants to rely upon the Judgment, Order, Government Resolution/circular, Notification document which are not in English, typed or xerox copies of the translation in English of such judgment, order, Government Resolution/ Circular shall be produced. (2) When the Advocate/party wants to produce and refer to other documents, the Advocate/party shall give an undertaking at the time of filing the Petitions that typed English translation thereof shall be produced if required by the court. Thus, this judgment and the above quoted portions were brought to the notice of the petitioner. The petitioner realised that Chapter XVII Rule 2 which is about accompaniments to the application thou gh provides that the applicant shall annex to his application, the english documents, it further provides by the proviso that such translations would not be necessary if the documents are in Marathi and if the party or the Advocate undertakes that English translations would be supplied whenever an order in that respect is made by the Court in a particular proceeding. Thus, the petitioner found that the procedure prescribed in the Appellate Side Rules permitted the petitioner to file a Petition alongwith Marathi annexures with an undertaking that the English translation will be submitted or supplied whenever order in that respect is made by the court in a particular proceeding. Having realised that this Rule has been struck down by the above referred judgment, the petitioner has filed this Petition for a declaration that Rule 2 (i) of Chapter XVII of the Appellate Side Rules be held to be constitutionally valid and has sought direction to the Registrar of this court to implement Rule 2 (i) of Chapter XVII along with the proviso. He sought a further direction that the Registry to accept the Writ Petition from the petitioner with Marathi documents including the Marathi documents where the impugned orders are in Marathi without insisting for the English translation thereof in conformity with the Rules referred to in Chapter XVII Rule 2 (i ).

(3.) IN this Petition, the Thane Bar Association, Thane, has filed an Intervention Application being Civil Application No. 2677 of 2007 supporting the petitioners. Since it was a Civil Application by Advocates' Association, we have allowed them to intervene without being joined as party-respondents.