S.K.Katriar, J.

1. Heard Mr. Madan Mohan Prasad for the petitioner, and Mr. Mohit Kumar Shah, JC to Mr. Mihir Kumar Jha for the respondents. Learned Counsel for the respondents has taken a preliminary objection that in view of the laws governing the issue, a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India and can be filed in the Patna High Court only in English. The present writ petition is in Hindi and cannot, therefore, be entertained. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contested this proposition and submits that a writ petition under Articles 226 and/or 227 in Hindi is maintainable in this Court.

2. Rule 1, Chapter III, Part II of the Patna High Court Rules lays down that "Every application to the High Court shall be by a petition written in the English language." Articles 348 (1) and (2) of the Constitution is relevant in the present context which reads as follows:

Language of the Supreme Court, High Court, etc. 348. Language to be used in the Supreme Court and in the High Courts and for Acts, Bills, etc.--(1) Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this Part, until Parliament by law otherwise provides- (a) all proceedings in the Supreme Co