By the Court.—These four writ petitions raise a challenge to the levy of license fee by the Zila Panchayat, Aligarh in terms of bye-laws framed by it under the provisions of the U.P. Kshetra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961 (Adhiniyam). While the petitioners in the leading writ petition are engaged in the manufacture of iron rods, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 8360 of 2013 runs a roller flour mill, while the petitioner in Writ Petition Nos. 36694 of 2013 and 36695 of 2013 are engaged in the manufacture of iron rods and iron sheets. Except for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 8360 of 2013, all the other writ petitioners admittedly held licenses for carrying on their industry in trade granted by the Zila Panchayat, Aligarh. The cause for the institution of the present writ petitions appears to be the promulgation of the amended bye-laws on 29 March 2012 and in terms of which the license fee was increased by the Zila Panchayat concerned. As a consequence of the increase in license fee, the petitioners who were engaged in the manufacture of iron rods and iron sheets became liable to pay a license fee of Rs. 2,00,000/- instead of Rs. 2,000/-.

2. For a roller flour mill a license fee of Rs. 1,00,000/- came to be imposed instead of the earlier prescribed license fee of Rs. 3,000/-. It further becomes pertinent to note here that except for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 8360 of 2013, all the other connected writ petitions assailed the validity of the bye-laws with reference to the entry of their respective trade as set forth in bye-law No. 14 only. In essence, all the writ petitioners were aggrieved by the enhancement of license fee. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 8360 of 2013 alone has raised an additional ground of not being liable to obtain a license at all. Although, the relief sought in this writ petitions is again with reference to the item relating to flour mills as contained in bye-law No. 14, Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, the learned Senior Counsel who has appeared in support of this writ petition, has submitted that a holistic reading of the reliefs claimed would indicate that the petitioner has raised a fundamental challenge in respect of the obligation to obtain a license as imposed by the bye-laws in question. It is in the above backdrop that we have heard the learned counsels for the contesting parties.

3. Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, learned Senior Counsel, who led the submissions on behalf of the petitioners drew our attention to the provisions of Section 239 of the Adhiniyam and submitted that a roller flour mill is not liable to be treated as being subject to the statutory liability of obtaining a license for carrying on its trade and business. This submission primarily rests upon the asserted distinction in the language employed by the English and Hindi texts of Section 239(2) D (d). It is his submission that although the English text of the Adhiniyam employs and uses the phrase “flour mill”, the Hindi version of the said enactment uses the phrase vkVk pDdh . Referring to the pleadings taken in the writ petition, Sri Jain contends that an “aatta chakki” is distinct and different from a roller flour mill and therefore, it is apparent that the business of a roller flour mill would not stand covered under Section 239. Placing reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s J.K. Jute Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P. and another, AIR 1961 SC 1534 and of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Syed Mazahar Mustafa Jafri v. Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Allahabad and others, 1992 AWC 190, Sri Jain submitted that since Hindi is the official language in the State of U.P., it is the Hindi text of the enactment which must prevail and be considered as authoritatively decisive of the question as to whether a roller flour mill would stand covered under the provisions of Section 239 of the A