Harnedra Pratap Singh,Advocate v. The Honble President Of India

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14905 of 2011 Harendra Pratap Singh, Advocate, Aged About 43 Years S/O Sri Brahma Dayal Singh 'Freedom Fighter' (Father) And Late Shreemati Teeljharo Devi (Mother), R/O Vill.-Narbirpur, Panchayat-Narbirpur, Proposed, BlockNabirpur, (South Of Koelawar-Kulharia Jameera Railway Line), P.S.- Koelawar, Distt.-Bhojpur (Arrah), Proposed Division Shahabad (Arrah), Present Address-2A, Kamla Apartment, Kavi Raman Path, Purbee Boring Road, Patna (Near-Ex-Chief Minister, Bihar Late Satyendra Narayan Sinha) And Practicing As An Advocate, A Member Of Advocates' Association, Advocates' House, High Court Of Bihar At Patna.(in person) .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, Govt. Of India, New Delhi(respondent no.3)

2. The Hon'ble Minister, Ministry Of Home Affairs, Govt. Of India, New Delhi through the Secretary, Deptt. Of Home Ministry, Govt. Of India, New Delhi.(respondent no.4)

3. The Secretary, Deptt. Of Home Ministry Affairs, Govt. Of India, New Delhi.

4. The Joint Secretary, Deptt. Of Home Ministry, (Official Language), Govt. Of India, New Delhi.

5. The Hon'Ble Minister, Ministry Of Law, Justice And Company Affairs In The Deptt. Of Legal Affairs Govt. Of India, New Delhi Through the respondent no.7.

6. The Secretary, Deptt. Of Law, Justice And Company Affairs in the Deptt. Of Legal Affairs, Govt. Of India, New Delhi.

7. The State Of Bihar Through The Chief Secretary, Govt. Of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna, Bihar, India. (respondent no.9)

8. The Chief Secretary, Govt. Of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna, Bihar, India.

9. The Principal Secretary, The Deptt. Of Cabinet Secretariat, (Rajya Bhasha), Govt. Of Bihar, Patna, India.

10.The State Of Jharkhand Through The Chief Secretary, Govt. Of Jharkhand, Ranchi, India. (respondent no.12

11. The Chief Secretary, Govt. Of Jharkhand, Ranchi, India.

12. The Principal Secretary, The Deptt. Of Cabinet Secretariat, (Rajya Bhasha), Govt. Of Jharkhand, Ranchi, India.

13. The State Of Uttar Pradesh Through The Chief Secretary, Govt. Of Uttar Pradesh Lucknow, India. (respondent no.14)

14. The Chief Secretary, Govt. Of Uttar Pradesh Lucknow, India.

15. The Principal Secretary, Deptt. Of Cabinet Secretariat (Raj Bhasha), Govt. Of Uttar Pradesh Lucknow, India.

.... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Harendra Pratap Singh ( in person) For the Respondents : Mr. Tej Bahadur Singh AAG-7. ===========================================================

Patna High Court CWJC No.14905 of 2011 dt.22-09-2015 2/3 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 22-09-2015 Heard the petitioner in person and Mr. S. D. Sanjay Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India. By this writ application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus or appropriate order/writ commanding the Union of India to incorporate/include the Bhojpuri language in the VIII Schedule of the Constitution of India by constituting a Commission to make a recommendation to the Hon'ble the President in the light of the provisions of the Constitution of India. Analogous relief(s) thereto have also been sought.

The writ application as seen from paragraph 1 thereof has been filed on behalf of the residents who are people, farmers, labours, men and women of SC/ST , advocates, teachers students, freedom fighter of all the Panchayats, Blocks, Districts, States in the territory of India. The application does not pertain to any wrong or injury caused to the petitioner which requires to be corrected by issuance of appropriate direction/order/writ. Having heard the petitioner in person and Mr. S.D. Sanjay, Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the respondent- Union of India this Court finds substance in the

Patna High Court CWJC No.14905 of 2011 dt.22-09-2015 3/3 submission of the counsel for the Union of India that the present writ petition in the form it has been presented is not maintainable. However, the petitioner state that the application be disposed of giving him liberty to pursue the representation which he has already filed before the appropriate authority of the Union of India.

The application is disposed of permitting the petitioner to pursue the representation wherever it has been filed in accordance with law.

(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) Shyam/- U