9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (2) TMI 1420 - HC - Indian LawsValidity of Rule 35 of the Maharashtra Shops and Establishments (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Rules 2018 - ultra vires to Articles 13, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g) or not - language of the Name Board - HELD THAT - There is a definite public purpose that is sought to be achieved by Rule 35 if read correctly. What the Petition wholly fails to recognise is that this requirement is not meant to benefit retail traders but is meant for the convenience and benefit of workers and the public who approaches these retail outlets. These are persons who, in the estimation of the State Government and as a matter of policy, are more likely to be familiar with Marathi as written in the Devanagari script. There are texts that are in Marathi and these are expressed and written in Devanagari. Indeed, and not to put too fine a point on it, even in this High Court, we permit documents to be produced in the original Marathi in Devanagari script although the language of the High Court is English. We do not insist on translations unless required by a particular Bench or Judge. It is the right of every litigant who comes to this Court to place before the Court a document in Marathi. Translations are made available on request for the convenience of the Court. To say, therefore, that there is some sort of invidious discrimination is equally wholly untrue. If any retailer wishes to carry on a trade or business in Maharashtra it must be subject to such conditions that the Government of Maharashtra seeks to impose uniformly on all. Clearly, there is no discrimination under Article 14. Rights under Article 19(1)(a) are not, as the Petition quite wrongly puts it, absolute or unfettered. There is Article 19(2) to take into consideration. Because of the wholly inappropriate and deplorable inclusion of paragraphs 12 to 14 in this Petition, this case is deemed appropriate to make an award of costs against the Petitioners, who are directed to pay an amount of Rs. 25,000/- into the Chief Minister's Relief Fund within one week from today - petition dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to Rule 35 of the Maharashtra Shops and Establishments (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Rules 2018. 2. Allegation that Rule 35 is ultra vires Articles 13, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India. 3. Request for a writ of mandamus to restrain the implementation of Rule 35. 4. Examination of the rational nexus between Rule 35 and the objectives of the parent Act. 5. Analysis of whether Rule 35 violates Part III of the Constitution, particularly Articles 14, 19, and 29. 6. Consideration of the distinction between language and script in the context of Rule 35. 7. Evaluation of the bona fides of the Petitioners' intentions. Detailed Analysis: 1. Challenge to Rule 35 of the Maharashtra Shops and Establishments (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Rules 2018: The Petitioners, a Federation of Retail Traders Welfare Association and an individual, challenged Rule 35, which mandates that the name board of every establishment be in Marathi language in Devanagari script. They argued that this rule is ultra vires Articles 13, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India. 2. Allegation that Rule 35 is ultra vires Articles 13, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India: The Petitioners claimed that Rule 35 infringes upon their fundamental rights, particularly their freedom of expression and right to practice any profession. They argued that the rule imposes unreasonable restrictions not contemplated by the parent Act. 3. Request for a writ of mandamus to restrain the implementation of Rule 35: The Petitioners sought a writ of mandamus to restrain the State of Maharashtra and the Mumbai Municipal Corporation from implementing Rule 35. However, the Court noted that a demand for justice and its refusal are prerequisites for granting a mandamus. The Petitioners failed to demonstrate this, leading to the rejection of their prayer for a mandamus. 4. Examination of the rational nexus between Rule 35 and the objectives of the parent Act: The Court found that Rule 35 has a rational nexus to the objectives of the Maharashtra Shops and Establishments (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 2017. The rule aims to benefit workers and the public who are more likely to be familiar with Marathi in Devanagari script. The Court emphasized that the requirement is for the convenience and benefit of the public, not to impose disabilities on individuals. 5. Analysis of whether Rule 35 violates Part III of the Constitution, particularly Articles 14, 19, and 29: The Court rejected the argument that Rule 35 violates Articles 14 and 19. It stated that the rights under Article 19(1)(a) are not absolute and must be considered in light of Article 19(2). The requirement to display the name board in Marathi is a reasonable restriction with a rational nexus to the Act's objectives. The Court also dismissed the argument that Rule 35 infringes Article 29, which protects the interests of minorities, as the rule does not prohibit the use of other languages or scripts. 6. Consideration of the distinction between language and script in the context of Rule 35: The Petitioners argued that Marathi can be written in multiple scripts and that there should be no compulsion to use Devanagari script. The Court found this argument to be without merit, emphasizing that Marathi is naturally written in Devanagari script and that the distinction between language and script is not relevant in this context. 7. Evaluation of the bona fides of the Petitioners' intentions: The Court questioned the bona fides of the Petitioners, noting that Rule 35 has been in existence since 2018 and that the Petitioners could not have been unaware of it. The Court inferred that the Petition might be politically motivated, particularly given the timing of its filing and the inclusion of politically charged paragraphs in the Petition. The Court strongly deprecated the Petitioners' motives and imposed costs of Rs. 25,000/- to be paid to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund. Conclusion: The Petition was rejected, with the Court finding no merit in the arguments presented. The Court emphasized the rational nexus between Rule 35 and the objectives of the parent Act, dismissed claims of constitutional violations, and questioned the bona fides of the Petitioners' intentions. Costs were imposed on the Petitioners for the inappropriate and politically motivated nature of the Petition.
|
