2018 (5) TMI 2048 - HC - Indian Laws

Levy of Terminal Tax - Hindi version of the statutory provisions and that of English version has come before the Courts from time to time - Whether Hindi version or English version of The Terminal Tax (Assessment and Collection) on the Goods Exported from Madhya Pradesh Municipal Limits Rules, 1996, was ordered to be decided at the time of passing of the final order and if the Court finds contradictory position, then the matter would be referred to the High Court? - section 355 read with sections 127 and 129 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 - HELD THAT - As per section 4 of the Language Act, the bills introduced in the State Legislature; the Acts passed by each House of the State Legislature; all orders, rules, regulations and bye-laws are published in Hindi. The bills are introduced in Hindi, passed in Hindi and assented to by the Hon'ble Governor. The language of the bill is in Hindi. In terms of Article 348, the translation is required to be published in English language under the authority of the Hon'ble Governor in the official gazette, which is deemed to be an authoritative text in the English language. Thus, the authoritative text prepared in terms of sub-clause (3) of Article 348 is not an authoritative text discussed and resolved by the State Legislature, but is an action performed by the Executive in exercise of the administrative powers of the State. The English version is not discussed by the State Legislature. Therefore, the Act has been passed in Hindi which is a Legislative action whereas the authoritative text in English is an Executive action. Therefore, in case of conflict between the two, the Legislative enactment will prevail rather than an Executive action of translation though published under the authority of the Hon'ble Governor. Such is the view taken by the Himachal Pradesh High Court as well. The language of the State being Hindi and the Act having been passed in Hindi, the English version of such text in Hindi is an act of the Executive, which will not prevail over the legislation enacted by the State Legislature in Hindi. Therefore, in case of conflict between Hindi version and the English version, the Legislative version would prevail rather than the authorized version published under the authority of the Hon'ble Governor as an Executive function - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Discrepancy between Hindi and English versions of the Terminal Tax Rules.
2. Determination of which version prevails in case of conflict.
3. Interpretation of relevant constitutional and statutory provisions.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Discrepancy between Hindi and English versions of the Terminal Tax Rules:
The petitioner challenged an order regarding the discrepancy between the Hindi and English versions of The Terminal Tax (Assessment and Collection) on the Goods Exported from Madhya Pradesh Municipal Limits Rules, 1996. The English version stated that in case of submission of a wrong return, "the amount equal to ten times of tax shall be payable," whereas the Hindi version indicated that "in addition to tax payable, the penalty shall be equivalent to 10 times of the tax amount." This discrepancy led to different financial implications under each version.

2. Determination of which version prevails in case of conflict:
The petitioner argued that in terms of Article 348 of the Constitution, the authoritative translation in English should prevail over the Hindi text. Several precedents were cited, including judgments from the Allahabad High Court and the Supreme Court, which suggested that in case of ambiguity, the English version should be considered authoritative. However, the respondent's counsel referred to a Seven Judges Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court, which held that where the official language is Hindi, the Hindi version will prevail in case of conflict.

3. Interpretation of relevant constitutional and statutory provisions:
The court examined various constitutional provisions, including Articles 345 and 348, and statutory provisions under the Madhya Pradesh Official Language Act, 1957, and the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961. Article 345 allows the Legislature of a State to adopt any language in use in the State or Hindi for official purposes. Article 348 mandates that the authoritative texts of all Acts, Bills, and other legislative documents should be in English unless the Governor authorizes the use of Hindi. The Madhya Pradesh Official Language Act, 1957, and subsequent notifications established Hindi as the language for all legislative and official documents in the state.

The court referred to several judgments to interpret these provisions. A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Haji Lal Mohammad Biri Works v. Sales Tax Officer held that in case of conflict, the Hindi version would prevail. This was approved by the Supreme Court in M/s. JK Jute Mills Company Limited v. The State of U.P. The Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Jaswant Sugar Mills Limited's case initially held that the English version should prevail in case of divergence, but this was later overruled by the Seven Judges Full Bench in Mata Badal Pandey-I, which affirmed that the Hindi version would prevail.

The court also considered judgments from other High Courts, including the Himachal Pradesh High Court, which held that the language in which the bill was introduced and passed by the Legislature should prevail. Similarly, the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Mangilal Suratsingh's case and Technofab Engineering Limited v. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited upheld the precedence of the Hindi version over the English translation.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that in the case of conflict between the Hindi and English versions of the Terminal Tax Rules, the Hindi version would prevail. The authoritative text in English is an executive action, whereas the legislative enactment in Hindi represents the true intention of the Legislature. Thus, the petition was dismissed, affirming the primacy of the Hindi version in case of any discrepancy.