VINAY KUMAR SINGH Vs. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Madan Mohan Prasad for the petitioner, and Mr. Mohit Kumar Shah, JC to Mr. Mihir Kumar Jha for the respondents. Learned Counsel for the respondents has taken a preliminary objection that in view of the laws governing the issue, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and can be filed in the Patna High Court only in English. The present writ petition is in Hindi and cannot, therefore, be entertained. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contested this proposition and submits that a writ petition under Articles 226 and/or 227 in Hindi is maintainable in this Court.

(2.) RULE 1, Chapter III, Part II of the Patna High Court RULEs lays down that "Every application to the High Court shall be by a petition written in the English language." Articles 348 (1) and (2) of the Constitution is relevant in the present context which reads as follows: Language of the Supreme Court, High Court, etc. 348. Language to be used in the Supreme Court and in the High Courts and for Acts, Bills, etc.--(1) Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this Part, until Parliament by law otherwise provides- (a) all proceedings in the Supreme Court and in every High Court, (b) the authoritative texts- (i) of all Bills to be introduced or amendments thereto to be moved in either House of Parliament or in the House or either House of the Legislature of a State, (ii) of all Acts passed by Parliament or the legislature of a State and of all ordinances promulgated by the President or the Governor of a State, and under anylaw made by Parliament or the legislature of a State, shall be in the English language. (2) Notwithstanding anything in Sub-clause (a) of Clause (1), the Governor of a State may, with the previous consent of the President, authorities the use of the Hindi language, or any other language used for any official purpose of the State, in proceedings in the High Court having its principal seat in that State : Provided that nothing in this clause shall apply to any judgment, decree or order passed or made by such High Court." (3).... ........ Section 7 of the Official Language Act, 1963 (Act 19 if 1963), hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', is also relevant in the present context and is set out hereinbelow for the facilitiy of quick reference :

(3.) I must now notice some of the judgments relied on by learned Counsel for the petitioner. He first of all relied on the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court which is in Hindi, reported in 1981 BBCJ 260 (Nazir Hussain v. Dukh Mochan Thakur). The judgment is in Hindi and was passed on a criminal revision application. The judgment is obviously irrelevant in the present context, because it is squarely covered by the provisions of the aforesaid notification. (7.1) He next relied on the judgment of the Supreme court reported in (2001 (2) SCC 247) Dr. Vijay Lakshmi Sadho v. Jagdish. The civil appeal before the Supreme Court had arisen out of an election petition. The same did not deal with a writ petition from Bihar and, therefore, the judgment is inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. (7.2) He has next relied on a Division Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court reported in AIR 1977 Aliahabad 164 (Prabhandhak Samiti v. Zila Vidyalaya Nirikshak). Paragraph 16 of this judgment is relevant in the present context, and is reproduced hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference: "16. Thus, on a proper interpretation of the notification dated 5th September 1969 made under Article 348 (2), there can be no manner of doubt as to the legality of a writ petition being drafted in Hindi in Deo Nagri script and filed for adjudication in the High Court in the State of Uttar Pradesh. In fact, the language of the notification is wide enough to cover all pleadings, including plaits, written statements, writ petitions and also other documents which are required to be filed in such proceedings, tt is also clear from the various measures al ready taken to which we have referred in our judgment that the law as it now stands does not empower a Judge of our High Court while hearing a case to stop a litigant or his Advocate from making the arguments in Hindi, if he so desires. It is also equally clear that it is open to a Judge of the High Court hearing a case to pass his judgment or decree or order in Hindi, if he so chooses, but he cannot be compelled to do so. In case, however, he passes an order or decree etc. in Hindi, the only limitation still imposed upon him is that it must be accompanied by a translation of the same in the English language issued by the authority of the High Court. This sums up the present legal position with regard to the use of Hindi in proceeding in the High Court. Therefore, we hold that a writ petition presented in Hindi in Deo Nagri script in the High Court is competent and the petitioner is entitled to ask for its adjudication." It is manifest from a bare perusal of the judgment that the Governor of the State of Uttar Pradesh has issued a notification in terms of Article 348 (2) of the Constitution of India permitting presentation of writ petitions in Hindi language in Devnagri Script as an alternative language to English in the High Court of Uttar Pradesh. A similar notification of the State of Bihar set out and discussed hereinabove prohibits writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 in the Hindi language in the Patna High Court The judgment of the Allahabad High Court is obviously inapplicable to the present case. (7.3) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has next relied on an order dated 21-7-1995 of a Division Bench of this Court, passed on LPA No. 600 of 1995, (Swaran Singh Bagga v. N.N. Singh, Registrar), reported in 2003 (1) PLJR 315, and is set out hereinbelowfor the facility of quick reference: "This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge dated 5-5-1995 passed in CWJC No. 2825 of 1995, who has dismissed the same by referring to Article 348 of the Constitution of India. 2. The prayer of the appellant was that all proceedings in the High Court must be in Hindi, arguments should be advanced in Hindi, arguments should be advanced in Hindi and judgment should also be delivered in Hindi. This prayer possibly cannot be granted. There is no bar for any person to file an application in Hindi nor is there any bar for any person to advance argument in Hindi and in fact in several cases this is being accepted by this Court." 3. In that view of the matter, we see no justification in entertaining this appeal. It, accordingly, stands rejected." The main issue raised by the appellant in the aforesaid case appears to be that all proceedings in the High Court must be in Hindi, arguments should be advanced in Hindi and the judgment should also be delivered in Hindi which was rejected by the High Court and the appeal was dismissed. The aforesaid notification of the Governor of Bihar issued in terms of Article 348 (2) of the Constitution of India read with Section 7 of the Act was not brought to the notice of the Bench. The appeal before the Division Bench arose out of the order dated 5-5-1995, passed in CWJC No. 2825 of 1995. Therefore, the controversy whether or not a writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India can be presented in Hindi in this Court was not the issue before the Division Bench. The issue was whether or not the proceedings, the arguments, and the judgment can only be in Hindi. (7.4) Learned Counsel for the petitioner next submits that the writ petition in CWJC No. 1948 of 2002 (Lal Bihar Sao v. Bihar State through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar), was also presented in Hindi and entertained by this Court. I have perused the order dated 9-7-2002, disposing of the writ petition, inter alia, with the following observations: