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 favours the translated text where conflict arises, resulting in rejection of the challenge based on the Hindi wording. The delegation of powers under the Act was held to include exercise of Section 138 powers by the District Magistrate pursuant to notifications under Section 140 and Section 185, and the notification does not curtail the District Magistrate's authority under Section 138(4). Financial powers conferred on Pradhan, Up Pradhan and Panchayat members are unambiguously delegated to the District Magistrate. A final enquiry under Section 138 was directed to conclude within two months.

---

---

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.

---