IMPORTANT POINT
Official communications in region 'C' must be bilingual, ensuring accessibility for non-Hindi speakers.

JUDGMENT :

(Per Hon‘ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)

Heard Sri D.S.S. Siva Darshan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.13043 and 13046 of 2024, Sri P. Venkata Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.14904 of 2024, Sri O. Uday Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, Sri Y.N. Vivekananda, learned counsel appearing for the other official respondents, and the appellate authority, who is arrayed as the 3rd respondent in W.P.No.13043 and 13046 of 2024, appearing in person.

2. As all the three writ petitions arise out of a common issue they are being disposed of by way of this common order.

3. At the outset, it may be stated that this judgment is not on the merits of any of the three cases and is only dealing with the question of whether the appellate order under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 can be issued, in the State of Andhra Pradesh, in Hindi only.

4. In all these three cases, the petitioners had approached the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 107 of the CGST Act for redressing their grievances. The Commissioner (Appeals), in these three cases, passed orders, whose details are given below:

5. The Commissioner (Appeals), after hearing the parties in these appeals, had passed hand written orders in Hindi. As the petitioners are not conversant with the said language, they had sought copies of the said order in English. However, such copies, in English, were not furnished to the petitioners. Aggrieved, by non-supply of copies of the orders in English, and on various other grounds raised by them, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of the present writ petitions.

6. The Commissioner (Appeals), apart from being represented by Sri Y.N. Vivekananda, learned counsel, had also appeared in person and made his presentation in person apart from filing counter affidavits in these three cases.

7. The case of the Commissioner (Appeals), for passing the orders in Hindi alone, is as follows:

a) Article 348 of the Constitution of India, which stipulates that orders, Rules, Regulations and Bye-laws would be in English, would not be applicable to adjudicatory orders and they can be furnished in Hindi.

b) The report of the Law Commission of India (Report No.216, December 2008) at page 36 mentions that nothing prevents a Government Officer from passing orders in Hindi, as these orders can be challenged in the High Courts and Supreme Courts by producing English translations of the said orders.

c) Article 343 of the Constitution of India states that ‘Hindi in Devanagari Script’ with international form of Indian Numerals is the official language of Union of India and the status of ‘English’ is that of an associate language.

d) Article 344 of the Constitution of India provides that for the Constitution of an Official Languages Commission, whose recommendations are to be placed before the President for progressive introduction of Hindi for official purposes.

e) The Presidential Order, dated 02.07.2008, had accepted, one such recommendation of the Official Languages Commission, requiring 20% of the work to be carried out in Hindi, in regions categorised as ‘C’ region. Since Andhra Pradesh falls in ‘C’ region, all the officers, including the Commissioner (Appeals), are required to carry out 20% of their work in Hindi and consequently, orders are being passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in Hindi.

f) The Commissioner (Appeals) also states that the total number of appeal Orders issued by him, from 21.06.2023, is 619, in which 506 are in English language and only 113 are in Hindi language.

g) The Commissioner (Appeals) also relies upon the judgments of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the cases of Murasoli Maran