Authoritative English text prevails in a true conflict between State law versions; delegated powers extend unless expressly restricted.

Where a State law is published in Hindi and an authorised English translation also exists, a true conflict between the two versions is resolved by applying the authoritative English text under Article 348; words appearing only in the Hindi version cannot be read into the English text, and the contrary contention failed. The Court also held that powers delegated by the State Government under the Uttarakhand Panchayat Raj Act extended to action under Section 138(1)(c), because the delegation was not shown to be expressly restricted to suspension under Section 138(4). The challenge to the District Magistrate's exercise of delegated power therefore failed, and the writ appeal was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, in case of conflict between the Hindi and English versions of Section 138(1)(c) of the Uttarakhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2016, the English translation would govern; (ii) Whether the District Magistrate could validly exercise the power to take away the appellant's financial and administrative powers under the delegated powers under the Act.

Issue (i): Whether, in case of conflict between the Hindi and English versions of Section 138(1)(c) of the Uttarakhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2016, the English translation would govern.

Analysis: Article 348 of the Constitution of India treats the authoritative English text of State laws, rules and regulations as controlling where the statute is made in a language other than English and an English translation is published under the authority of the Governor. The Court distinguished a mere ambiguity from a true conflict between the two versions and held that, where the English text omits words found in the Hindi version and the two cannot be reconciled, the authoritative English translation must prevail. The requirement of prior governmental satisfaction appearing only in the Hindi version could not be read into the English text.

Conclusion: The conflict was resolved in favour of the English translation, and the contention based on the Hindi version failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the District Magistrate could validly exercise the power to take away the appellant's financial and administrative powers under the delegated powers under the Act.

Analysis: Sections 146 and 185 of the Uttarakhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2016 empower the State Government to delegate its powers under the Act to the prescribed authority. The delegation was not shown to be restricted so as to exclude action under Section 138(1)(c). The Court found no basis to confine the delegation only to suspension under Section 138(4), and the challenge to the exercise of delegated power did not succeed. The separate complaint regarding the committee arrangement was not examined on merits.

Conclusion: The District Magistrate's exercise of delegated power was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appellant's challenge to the order taking away financial and administrative powers did not succeed, and the writ appeal stood dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a State law is issued in an official language other than English, the authoritative English translation prevails in a true conflict between the two versions, and delegated powers under the statute extend to the field covered by the delegation unless the delegation is expressly restricted.

---