B.Subhashan Reddy, C.J.: This writ petition is filed seeking for a writ of mandamus to the Governor to issue notification under Art.348(2) of the Constitution of India, for the use of Tamil language in the High Court of Madras. 2. Mr.S.Ayyadurai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in this public interest litigation takes us to Art.348 of the Constitution of India relating to the language in the Supreme Court and the High Court, etc. What the learned counsel submits is that Tamil language should be permitted to be used, right from filing the petitions till the disposal of the cases, in addition to English language. Art.348(1) of the Constitution of India provides (a) all proceedings in the Supreme Court and in every High Court be in English language. Art.348(2) of Constitution of India reads as follows: “(2) Notwithstanding anything in Sub-clause (a) of Clause (i) the Governor of a State may, with the previous consent of the President, authorise the use of the Hindi language, or any other language used for any official purposes of the State in proceedings in the High Court having its principal seat in that State. Provided that nothing in this clause shall apply to any judgment, decree or order passed or made by such High Court.” 3. Admittedly there is no such power exercised by Governor under Art.348(2) of the Constitution of India, and by this writ petition a direction is sought to be issued to the Governor and the council of Ministers in exercise such power, and issue notification authorising the usuage of Tamil language in the High Court also. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgments of Allahabad High Court reported in Prabhandhak Samiti v. Zila Vidyalaya Nirikshak, A.I.R. 1977 All. 164 and Rajasthan High Court reported in Narendra Kumar v. Rajasthan High Court, A.I.R. 1991 Raj. 33. 4. In Prabhandhak Samiti case, A.I.R. 1977 All. 164, notification was already issued by the Governor exercising the power under Art.348(2) of the Constitution of India authorising the usuage of Hindi in Devnagri script in the High Court of Allahabad. In Narendra Kumar v. Rajasthan High Court, A.I.R. 1991 Raj. 33, a distinction was drawn between Arts.344 and 348 of Constitution of India. We are not facing such a situation as arisen either in the case cited first supra or second supra. In Narendra Kumar v. Rajasthan High Court, A.I.R. 1991 Raj. 33, a distinction was drawn between Arts.344 and 348 of Constitution of India. We are not facing such a situation as arisen either in the case cited first supra or second supra. As already stated above, Art.348(2) of the Constitution of India, enables the Governor of a State, to authorise the use of the Hindi language or any other language in addition to English even in the High Court, and if such enabling provision is exercised, it may be that the language other than English can be put to use. But in the absence of any such notification, nobody can demand to exercise such power to issue such notification. It is for the authorities empowered under Art.348(2) of the Constitution of India to exercise such power and it is well-settled law that the High Court will not legislate the matter and issue such a direction as sought for in this writ petition, for exercise of such power, which is legislative in nature. We therefore, dismiss the writ petition.