Hindi text prevails over authorised English translation for State rules when versions conflict.

Where a State enactment is made in Hindi and an authorised English translation is later published, the Hindi legislative text remains controlling if the two versions diverge. The court treated the English version as an executive translation that cannot override the enacted Hindi rules, and distinguished precedents involving Central enactments. Applying that principle, it held that the Hindi version of the State rules prevailed over the English version, so the challenge based on the contrary reading failed and the writ petition was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in case of a conflict between the Hindi text and the English version of the State rules, the English version prevails or the Hindi version prevails.

Analysis: The Rules were framed under the State municipal law and, under the State official language regime, the Bill, Act, rules and related instruments were enacted and published in Hindi, while the English version was an authoritative translation published under the authority of the Governor. The Court distinguished precedents dealing with Central enactments and relied on earlier local authority to hold that the translation is an executive act and cannot displace the legislative text in Hindi. It held that, where the enactment has been made in Hindi and an authorised English version is later published, the legislative version remains the controlling text if there is a divergence between the two versions.

Conclusion: In case of conflict between the Hindi and English versions of the State rules, the Hindi version prevails and the petitioner's contention to the contrary fails.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the impugned order was rejected and the writ petition did not succeed.

Ratio Decidendi: For a State enactment made in Hindi, an authorised English translation under Article 348(3) is not superior to the enacted Hindi text, and in the event of divergence the legislative Hindi version governs.

---