2017 (9) TMI 2055 - HC - Indian Laws

Relevancy of language discrepancy in statutes and delegation of Panchayat powers: English text governs, district magistrate retains delegated authority.

Discrepancy between Hindi and English versions was resolved by applying the English translation as governing text, on the basis that settled precedent ... Relevancy of English translation or the original Hindi version when there is a discrepancy between the two - Power of the Government under Section 138(1)(c) of the Uttarakhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2016 has been exercised by the District Magistrate within the terms of a notification issued under Section 140 and Section 185 of the Act or not - financial powers of Pradhan. Whether in view of the difference in the language, which is used, the Hindi version must not be discarded? - HELD THAT:- This question is no longer res integra though difficulty may arise in the application of the settled legal principles. - In the case of Haji Lal Mohammad Biri Works, Meerganj, Allahabad and others Vs. The Sales-tax Officer, Allahabad [1958 (8) TMI 39 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT], the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court had occasion to consider this question. Therein, notifications were issued by the State Government in exercise of Section 3A(2) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act of 1948. The Full Bench of the Court took the view that though Section 3A(2) was to be deemed to be in force on 31.03.1956 as the amendment to Section 3A(2) was given effect from the said date and the purport was to validate the notifications of 1956, which in turn had been held to be void earlier, the Court took note of the fact that the old Section continued to remain in force and, therefore, the notification under the old Section 3A(2) could not be converted into one, which was issued under the newly introduced Section and it was declared void. This led to a further amendment in Section 3 and it was this Section, which was interpreted. The appellants, who belonged to the Lohar caste, claimed the status of Scheduled Tribe under the Act and the order, and sought promotion in the quota reserved for the Scheduled Tribes. The case was founded partly on the fact that Lohar community was included in the Schedule under the Act, as reflected in the Hindi version of the order and, therefore, they claimed that they were entitled to status of Scheduled Tribes. It is the English translation which would govern the field. This means that the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned order must be treated as flawed, as the Government has not applied its mind and not formed its opinion as required under the Hindi version of Section 138(1)(c), the argument must fail and the same is rejected. Power of the Government under Section 138(1)(c) has been exercised by the District Magistrate within the terms of a notification issued under Section 140 and Section 185 of the Act or not - HELD THAT:- The notification does not limit the power of the District Magistrate to exercise power under Section 138(4). Though the learned senior counsel for the appellant would submit that the words ‘prescribed authority’ is to be found in Section 138(4), we do not think that having regard to the scope of the notification under Section 185, by which the power under Section 138 has been delegated to the prescribed authority, which in the case of local Panchayat is with the District Magistrate, the power should be abridged or in any way truncated. Financial powers of Pradhan - HELD THAT:- The power in respect of a Pradhan, Up Pradhan and a member of the Village Panchayat is unambiguously delegated by the State Government to the District Magistrate. The delegation of the power is not called in question in the writ petition. A time limit must be fixed for completing the enquiry. Accordingly, it is directed that the final enquiry under Section 138 of the Act must be concluded within a period of two months from today. Appeal dismissed. Issues: (i) Whether a conflict between the Hindi original and the English translation of Section 138(1)(c) of the Uttarakhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2016 requires the Court to follow the Hindi text or the authoritative English translation published under Article 348(3) of the Constitution; (ii) Whether the State Government's delegation of powers under Sections 146 and 185 permits the District Magistrate to exercise powers under Section 138 including suspension and deprivation of financial powers; (iii) Whether the impugned order taking away the appellant's financial powers is vitiated for want of Government satisfaction or otherwise.Issue (i): Whether the Hindi version or the authoritative English translation governs where there is a conflict between the two texts of the Act.Analysis: The Court reviewed precedent on interpretation of conflicting language versions, including principles in which translations published under Article 348(3) are to be treated as the authoritative English text. The Court considered categories of cases where laws are originally in English or in a State official language and noted that where a law is enacted in the State's official language and a conflict arises on translation, the English translation published under Article 348(3) governs. The discrepancy in the relevant portion of Section 138(1)(c) was held to be a conflict rather than a mere ambiguity.Conclusion: The authoritative English translation published under Article 348(3) governs; this conclusion is against the appellant.Issue (ii): Whether delegation under Sections 146 and 185 authorises the District Magistrate to exercise the powers under Section 138, including suspension and deprival of financial powers.Analysis: The Court examined the scope of delegation in Sections 146 and 185 and the notification delegating powers to subordinate officers. The notification did not restrict the District Magistrate's exercise of power under Section 138(4), and the delegation to the District Magistrate was found to be within the statutory scheme. The petition did not challenge the validity of the delegation itself.Conclusion: The delegation to the District Magistrate to exercise the powers under Section 138 is valid; this conclusion is in favour of the respondent.Issue (iii): Whether the impugned order removing financial powers is invalid for lack of Government satisfaction or other defect.Analysis: Applying the resolution under Issue (i) that the English authoritative text governs, the Court found that the English text does not condition the exercise of power on prior Government satisfaction as contended under the Hindi version. The Court also held that the delegation to the District Magistrate covers the exercise impugned and that no additional independent requirement arose to vitiate the order. The Court nevertheless directed expedition of the final departmental enquiry and fixed a two-month limit for its completion.Conclusion: The challenge to the impugned order fails; this conclusion is against the appellant and in favour of the respondent.Final Conclusion: The Court upholds the validity of the impugned administrative action and the delegation enabling the District Magistrate to exercise the relevant powers under the Act, while directing the final inquiry to be completed within two months and urging accurate and faithful translations of legislative and subordinate texts.Ratio Decidendi: Where a State enacts law in a language other than English and an English translation is published under Article 348(3) of the Constitution, that authoritative English translation governs in cases of conflict between the two versions, and courts should apply the version that best gives effect to the Legislature's intention while harmonising textual differences where possible.