9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 1420X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri 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. - G.S. PATEL AND MADHAV J. JAMDAR, JJ. For the Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Settlements, AP Ors. v. MR. Apparao Anr. (2002) 4 SCC 638; paragraph 17; Sesa Shipping Ltd. Anr. v. Board of Trustees of the Port of Mormugao Anr. (2003) 105 (1) Bom LR 61; Jaripatka Dalit Kalyan Mahila M al v. State of Maharashtra Ors. (2004) 5 Bom CR 441; Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Anr. v. State of Maharashtra Ors. (2009) 4 Bom CR 616; Qambeer Jeevaji Ors. v. State of Maharashtra Ors. (2010) 5 Mah LJ 484: (2011) 3 Bom CR 299; The United Goans Shanti Concern v. Chief Secretary, Government of Goa Ors.; Rajasthan State Industrial Development Investment Corporation Anr. v. Diamond Gem Development Corporation Ltd. Anr. (2013) 5 SCC 470; Rajasthan State Industrial Development Investment Corporation v. Subhash Sindhi CHSL, Jaipur Ors. (2013) 5 SCC 427, Rajesh Punraj Khobragade Ors. v. State of Maharashtra Ors.; Warsi CHS (Proposed) v. Mumbai Municipal Corporation Ors.; DN Jeevaraj v. Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka Ors. (2016) 2 SCC 653; More Jeevan Yashwant Ors. v. Mumbai Municipal Corporation Anr.; Surendra Govekar Anr. v. Village Panchayat of Anjuna-Caisua Ors.; All India IDBI SC, Nav Buddhist OBC Officers' Welfar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... --As a general rule the order will not be granted unless the party complained of has known what it was he was required to do, so that he had the means of considering whether or not he should comply, and it must be shown by evidence that there was a distinct demand of that which the party seeking the mandamus desires to enforce, and that that demand was met by a refusal.' 25. In the cases before us there was no such demand or refusal. Thus, no ground whatsoever is shown here for the issue of any writ, order, or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution. (Emphasis added) 4. Petitioners and their Advocates who claim that their petition raises intricate questions of Constitutional law but proceed entirely oblivious of the settled law on mandamus deserve no indulgence. We reject the prayer for a mandamus. 5. We turn to the Rule in question. Rule 35 is extracted at page 10 and read thus: 35. Name Board to be in Marathi The Name Board of every establishment shall be in Marathi language in Devanagari Script and shall essentially be written in the beginning: Provided that, the employer may also have the Name Board in any other language and script in addition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ess than that of any other language. The submission is that State cannot dictate to any citizen in what language sign board must be displayed. Articles 14 and 19 gave an unfettered right to every citizen to be a sole judge of that citizen's mode and medium of expression. Article 14 protects everyone equally. 11. It is then submitted that Article 29 protects the interest of minorities and permits those with the distinct languages, scripts or cultures to conserve and propagate these. A compulsion to display the script other than the choice of minority thus infringes a constitutional guarantee. Therefore, while the State may use any language of its choice as its official language, it cannot force or foist that language on citizens. 12. Finally, it is submitted that Marathi as a language is constitutionally recognized. It is at Serial 13 of the VIII Schedule to be read with Articles 344 and 351 of the Constitution. But the Devanagari script is not so recognised. Marathi as a language be written in many scripts. There can be no compulsion to use only the Devanagari script. In this context reference is invited to decision of Allahabad High Court in Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd. vs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty and honour will increase their earning capacity resulting in their empowerment. 4. The Central Government has also circulated a model Shops and Establishments (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Bill, 2016, which has been finalised after detailed deliberations and consultation process, to all the State Governments for consideration. 5. In view of the above, the Government of Maharashtra considered it expedient to enact a new law, on the lines of the model Bill circulated by the Central Government, for regulation of conditions of employment and other conditions of service of workers employed in various establishments by repealing the existing Maharashtra Shops and Establishments Act. 6. The Bill seeks to achieve the above objectives. (Emphasis added) 14. The Rules are framed under Section 37(1) to advance these objects. 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, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o 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. 17. 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. 18. The distinction sought to be drawn between language or script is, to our mind an argument of their desperation. A name written in Roman script cannot be said to be in Marathi. The natural script for Marathi is Devanagari. And Devanagari itself was preceded by another script. Marathi is never naturally written in the Roman script. Obviously, there are situations where the language and script will go hand in hand. 19. We cannot but held wonder what is the real intent and purpose of this Petition at all, particularly given the fact that Rule has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
