JUDGEMENT 1. We have heard counsel for the parties. 2. The judgment impugned holds that a writ petition under Article 226 was not maintainable in vernacular. 3. The notification of the State Government dated 9.5.1972, under Article 348(2) of the Constitution of India and under Section 7 of the Official Languages Act provides Hindi as an alternative language for use in this Court also. Clauses 1 and 2, permits argument to be made in Hindi both in Civil and Criminal matters as also in filing of applications supported by affidavits. The proviso then makes an exception that English may also continue to be used for applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The proviso expressly provides that in so far as Tax References are concerned, it can be presented only in English language. 4. The judgment impugned proceeds on the premise that this notification which otherwise provides for use of Hindi as an alternative language in this Court carves out an exception with regard to petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Having given our anxious consideration to the same, we find it difficult to hold that it prohibits the institution of applications under Articles 226 and 227 other than in English. To our mind, the notification read in its entirety reflects that Hindi shall be the alternative language in this Court in Civil and Criminal matters and other applications supported by affidavits. It, however, makes exception to permit writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 to be filed in English also. It does not detract from the original provision providing for Hindi as an alternative language for presentation of applications supported by affidavits and which shall include writ petitions also. The proviso would not control the substantive provisions of Clauses 1 and 2 of the notification. If it was intended that writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 could not be presented in any other language except English, the notification shall have so specifically provided as it does in the case of Tax References cases prohibiting applications in any other language except English. The language of the notification being clear and it containing no ambiguity, we cannot read into it more than what it plainly provides for. 5. The language of the notification being clear and it containing no ambiguity, we cannot read into it more than what it plainly provides for. 5. A Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 600 of 1995 has already held as follows: "...There is no bar for any person to file an application in Hindi nor is there any bar for any person to advance argument in Hindi and in fact in several cases this is being accepted by this Court." 6. Though we were inclined to hear the appeal on merits with regard to the substantive claim of the appellant so that litigation could be shortened and appropriate order passed at this stage itself, learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not wish to argue on merit on the substantive questions involved in the case but simply desires an order of remand that a writ petition drafted in Hindi was maintainable. 7. We therefore proceed to hold that the judgment impugned is not sustainable. It is accordingly set aside. 8. The writ petition is remanded to the writ Court for disposal on merits.