The use of Urdu on Municipal Council signboards is permissible under the Maharashtra Local Authorities (Official Languages) Act, 2022, as it does not prohibit additional languages, emphasizing communication and cultural diversity.

JUDGMENT :

SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.

‘When you learn a language, you don’t just learn to speak and write a new language. You also learn to be open-minded, liberal, tolerant, kind and considerate towards all mankind.’

- Mouloud Benzadi

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant before this Court is apparently not pleased with the use of Urdu on the signboard of the new building of the Municipal Council, Patur (hereinafter referred to as ‘Municipal Council’) in district Akola, Maharashtra. The board of the Council displays "Municipal Council, Patur", in Marathi at the top, with its translation below in Urdu language.

3. According to the appellant, who is a former member of the Municipal Council, the work of the Municipal Council can only be conducted in Marathi, and the use of Urdu in any manner is impermissible, even though it may just be a writing on the signboard of the Municipal Council.

4. The appellant first raised her objection before the Municipal Council itself. The Council made its deliberations on the question raised by the appellant and ultimately through its resolution dated 14.02.2020, the Municipal Council rejected the appellant’s objection by a majority, and it was resolved that the use of Urdu in addition to Marathi on the signboard of the Municipal Council is perfectly justified. At this stage, we may mention that the signboard is mainly in Marathi, with Urdu appearing below on the signboard, since a significant number of Council members and residents within the Municipal Council area are familiar with Urdu language. This is not a new practice and in fact, it was pleaded before the Collector that this was displayed on the signboard since the existence of the Municipal Council, from the year 1956.

5. The appellant, not satisfied with the resolution, however, moved an application under Section 308 of the Maharashtra Municipal Council, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Township Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1965 Act’) before the Collector Akola, praying for setting aside of the Municipal Council’s resolution. This application was allowed, and the following order was passed on 15.12.2020:

“Application of applicant, under section 308 of Maharashtra Municipal Council, Nagar Panchayati and Industrial Township Act, 1965 similarly, Maharashtra Municipal Council, Nagar Panchayati and Industrial Township Act, 1965 in respect of section 308 is allowed as per the Government circular explanatory instruction no. 4(b) it has been ordered to the Municipal Council that Rajbhasha Marathi shall be used 100% in the Government proceedings.”

6. Some members of the Municipal Council challenged this order before the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati in revision under Section 318 of the 1965 Act. The Divisional Commissioner vide order dated 30.04.2021 set aside the order of the Collector, against which Writ Petition No. 2219 of 2021 was filed by the appellant before the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench).

7. The main ground of challenge by the appellant before the High Court was that Marathi is the official language of the State and all work conducted by government or government bodies, including local bodies, must be done only in Marathi. Therefore, according to the appellant, the use of Urdu in any manner is wrong, and should not be permitted.

8. In their reply, the members of the Municipal Council, apart from presenting their case on merits, raised a preliminary objection that the appellant’s application before the Collector under Section 308 of the 1965 Act, was not maintainable in the first place. It was argued that there is a resolution of the Municipal Council upholding its decision of displaying Urdu on the signboard of the Council, and in terms of the plain language of Section 308 of 1965 Act, any application, seeking suspension of execution of a Municipal Council’s resolution, can only be entertained by the Collector when moved by the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council; which was not the case here.

9. Sub-section (1) of Section 308 was amend