- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Yogish Saxena and Sri Ashok Khare, learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 4 and the learned standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Supplementary-affidavit filed today is taken on record. The petitioner questions the legality of the order passed by the prescribed authority dated 3rd of October, 2012 under the provisions of Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 whereby he has declared the respondent No. 4 to be a valid committee with Kuldeep Gangwar as the validly elected Manager of the Society.
(2.) Sri Yogish Saxena contends that writ petitions are not being accepted by the Registry on account of annexures being in Hindi filed alongwith the writ petitions. This issue has already been dealt with by this Court in writ petition No. 54488 of 2012. Smt. Rajeshwari v. State of U.P. and others, and the order dated 16.10.2012 passed therein will apply on the facts of the present case.
(3.) Apart from this, the Court would like to put on record that the genesis of such disputes with regard to the applicability of the vernacular language in court proceedings has been engaging the attention of this Court not only as observed in the order passed by me in Smt. Rajeshwari's case yesterday, but also in relation to the accessibility of Hindi language on a national level. Article 351 of the Constitution of India reads as under: 351. Directive for development of the Hindi language.--It shall be the duty of the Union to promote the spread of the Hindi language, to develop it so that it may serve as a medium of expression for all the elements of the composite culture of India and to secure its enrichment by assimilating without interfering with its genius, the forms, style and expressions used in Hindustani and in the other languages of India specified in the Eighth Schedule, and by drawing, wherever necessary or desirable, for its vocabulary, primarily on Sanskrit and secondarily on other languages.;