Disposed

Puduvai Kalai Ilakia Peru v. Govt of Union Treeitory of

Madras HC10 Sept 2014WP/13522/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought a Writ of Mandamus for strict implementation of Section 3 of the Pondicherry Official Language Act, 1965, directing severe action against violators. The Court noted the unique geographical and linguistic situation of Pondicherry's enclaves and ruled that no specific direction for 'letter and spirit' implementation could be given, closing the writ petition without costs.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands closed. No costs.

Puduvai Kalai Ilakia Peru Vs Govt of Union Treeitory of — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 10.09.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE and

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN

¶6

W.P.No.13522 of 2002

¶7

Puduvai Kalai Ilakia Peru Mandram a registered Society rep. By its

¶8

General Secretary M.S.Radhakrishnan .. Petitioner vs 1.Government of Union Territory of Pondicherry, rep. By its Secretary Personnel and Administration Reforms Department, Secretariat, Pondicherry.

¶9

2.Government of Union Territory of Pondicherry, rep. By its Secretary, Department of Art and Culture, Secretariat, Pondicherry. ..Respondents

¶10

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to strictly implement in letter and spirit the provisions of Section 3 of the Pondicherry Official Language Act 1965 in terms of the implementation order passed by the 1^st respondent in his reference No.82178/97/DARO, dated 15.9.1997 by taking severe action against those officials who violate the orders.

¶11

For Petitioner .. Mr.P.K.Rajagopal

¶12

For Respondents .. Mr.T.Murugesan Senior Government Pleader cum Public Prosecutor (Pondicherry)

¶13

(Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶14

The writ petition, styled as a Public Interest Litigation, seeks implementation of the provision of Section 3 of the Pondicherry Official Language Act, 1965, in “letter and spirit”.

¶15

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶16

2.The relevant provision being Section 3 reads as under:

¶17

Official Language of the Union Territory

¶18

“3.With effect from such date as the Administrator may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint in this behalf, the Tamil Language shall, subject to the provisions of Section 34 of the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963 (Central Act 20 of 1963) be the language to be used for all or any of the official purposes of the Union Territory and different dates may be appointed for different official purposes or for different areas in the Union Territory.

¶19

Provided that the Administrator may, by like notification, direct that in the case of Mahe area, the Malayalam language and in the case of Yanam area, the Telugu language may be used for such official purposes and subject to such conditions as may be specified in such notification.

¶20

Use of the Engligh Language for official purposes:

¶21

Not withstanding anything contained in Section3, as from the commencement of this Act, the English language may be used for all of the official purposes of the Union Territory.”

¶22

3.It is not disputed that from time to time 38 departments have been brought within the ambit of Section 3 of the notification.

¶23

4.In the counter-affidavit, it has been set out that the Union Territory of Pondicherry, in view of the aforesaid, follows the four language formula and all its four enclaves are situated far away from one another. The English language continues to be the link language among all officers working in all the four regions in order to avoid deviation in official business and that is the reason the transactions of official business continued to be made in English in the interest of public service though the use of Tamil language in Puducherry and Karaikkal, Malayalam in Mahe and Telugu in Yanam, are also in practice to the extent wherever possible. Not only that, a separate cell in the name of Tamil Development Wing in the Chief Secretariat, Puducherry, is proposed to be created with nine different category of posts numbering in total 11. The legislative business is also carried out in Tamil. The determination of Government of Puducherry to implement the use of Tamil language in all official correspondence in phased manner has been set out and the separate cell created is stated to involve a cost of Rs.10 crores per annum.

¶24

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶25

5.The aforesaid shows that the notification has been issued keeping in mind the peculiarity of the Union Territory of Puducherry, where there are people from different regions speaking different languages live. The local languages are 3 in number and that is why Section 3 refers to the area and the respective language for that area with a non-obstante clause for official communication in English on account of there being really three local languages. Thus, a four language formula is applied specially, as even the officers may be using one language or the other in their respective areas.

¶26

6.We are, thus, of the view that really speaking, there can be no direction from the Court for implementing it in true “letter and spirit”.

¶27

7.The Writ Petition stands closed. No costs.
Sd/-
Asst.Registrar (CS III)
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
sra
To
1.The Secretary,
Government of Union Territory of
Pondicherry, Personnel and
Administration Reforms Department,
Secretariat, Pondicherry.
2.The Secretary,
Government of Union Territory of
Pondicherry, Department of Art and Culture,
Secretariat, Pondicherry.
3. The Section Officer
VR Section,
High Court, Madras

¶28

1 cc to Senior Government pleader cum Senior Public prosecutor for Pondicherry, Sr. 43075

¶29

W.P.No.13522 of 2002

¶30

UG (CO) kk 17/9

¶31

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Puduvai Kalai Ilakia Peru v. Govt of Union Treeitory of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Puduvai Kalai Ilakia Peru v. Govt of Union Treeitory of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.M.Santhanagopalan, Vs the Union of India

Elephant G.Rajendran, Vs the Registrar General

C.R.Baskaran Vs the Ministry of Road Transport

M.Senthilnathan Vs The Chief Election

M.Arjunan, Vs State of Tamil Nadu

Pavalar B.Sankaran, Vs State of Tamilnadu, rep by its