ORDER 1. The order passed in Writ Petition No.4196/2005 (M.P. Nagar Nigarn/ Nagar Palika Karamchari Sangh, Katni and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another) shall also govern the disposal of Writ Petition No.3990/2005 (Katni Transport Association v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others). The petitioner of Writ Petition No.3990/2005 has also been permitted to intervene in Writ Petition No.4196/2005, wherein he has opposed the relief sought therein. As a result both the petitions have been heard together. 2. In Writ Petition No.4196/2005, petitioner No.1 is the Union of Employees of Municipal Corporation, Katni (in short, "the Corporation") and petitioner No.2 is an elected Corporator of that Corporation. They have challengyd the validity of communication dated 13.5.2005, Annexure P-S, addressed by the Commissioner, Urban Administration and Development, to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Katni, directing him to stop the collection of terminal tax by the system of Nakar barrier which the State Government had abolished in view of the provisions of the Terminal Tax (Assessment and Collection) on the Goods exported from Madhya Pradesh Municipal Limits, Rules, 1996 (in short "Rules"). The petitioners have also prayed for a direction against the State Government to pay compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- per month for the period during which the Corporation could not collect the terminal tax by Naka or barrier system. According to the petitioners, the Corporation is entitled to collect terminal tax by the system of Naka or barrier as without it the source of revenue of Corporation becomes virtually nil and no fund is left for payment of salaries to the employees. The petitioners have averred that earlier also when the Corporation was restrained to collect the terminal tax by Naka or barrier system, it suffered grave financial crisis. The apprehension of petitioners is that if the Naka or barrier system of collecting terminal tax by the Corporation will be removed, they will not be able to get their salaries from the Corporation. The Corporation, which is respondent No.2, in its return, has supported the cause of petitioners. In the return the Corporation has also taken the plea that it is empowered under section 189-A of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (in short "the Act") to recover the tax by public auction or private contract lease imposed under the Act. The State (respondent No.1), on the other hand, has prayed for the dismissal of the petition. 3. The State (respondent No.1), on the other hand, has prayed for the dismissal of the petition. 3. In Writ Petition No.3990/2005, the petitioner is Katni Transport Association and is aggrieved with the collection of terminal tax by the Corporation through private contractor (respondent No.4) by the system of Naka or barrier. In this petition also the Corporation has reiterated its authority to collect terminal tax by public auction or private contract lease. As regards the collection of terminal tax through private contractor (respondent No.4) the Corporation, in the return, has averred that his contract was cancelled vide order dated 25.5.2005, Annexure R-2/3. The petitioner has not controverted this fact by filing any rejoinder. 4. The crucial question which calls for consideration in these petitions is whether the Corporation is empowered to collect terminal tax by the system of Naka or barrier. 5. Section 189-A of the Act, which deals with recovery of taxes by public auction or private contract, reads as under: "189-A. Recovery of taxes by public auction of private contract. -- Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the Corporation may, by public auction or private contract, lease the recovery of any of the taxes and fees which may be imposed under this Act, subject to the condition and limitation, if any, prescribed by the State Government in this behalf" (Emphasis supplied) 6. For the purposes of collection of terminal tax, the State Government has framed the rules already mentioned above by the notification dated 21.2.1997 published in Madhya Pradesh Gazette on 7.3.1997: "3. Every person, businessman, establishment and the licence holder under the Madhya Pradesh Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 (No.24 of 1973), shall be responsible to collect the terminal tax or the goods at the rate specified in the Schedule, if he himself exports any goods as shown in the Schedule or sale for the purpose of export. 4. Every person, businessman, establishment and the licence holder under the Madhya Pradesh Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 (No.24 of 1973), shall be responsible to collect the terminal tax or the goods at the rate specified in the Schedule, if he himself exports any goods as shown in the Schedule or sale for the purpose of export. 4. The person, businessman, establishment or licence holder, as mentioned in rule 3 shall deposit in the Municipal Treasury the amount of terminal tax collected during the last month on the goods exported from the Municipal limits, through their shop establishment along with the return upto 10th day of every month." Hindi version of these rules is as follows: ^^3- izR;sd O;fDr] O;kikjh] LFkkiu rFkk e/; izns’k d`f”k mit eaMh vf/kfu;e] 1972 ¼dzekad 24 lu~ 1973½ ds v/khu vuqKfIr /kkjd dk nkf;Ro gksxk fd ;fn og vuqlwph esa nf’kZr fdlh eky dk Lo;a fu;kZr djrk gS ;k fu;kZr ds iz;kstu ls eky dk fodz; djrk gS rks vuqlwph esa fofufnZ”V nj ls lhek dj laxzg.k djsA 4- fu;e 3 esa of.kZr dksbZ O;fDr] O;kikjh] LFkkiu ;k vuqKfIr/kkjd] izR;sd ekg dh 10 rkjh[k rd] xr ekg dh vof/k ds nkSjku mudh nqdku@LFkkiu ls uxjikfyd lhek ds ckgj fu;kZr fd, x, eky rFkk ml ij olwy fd, x, lhek dj dh jkf’k fooj.kh ds lkFk uxjikfydk dks”kky; esa tek djsaxsA** The English version of the rules is not happily worded and is, therefore, ambiguous. The defect in the English version was also noticed earlier by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Moolji Bhai and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another [AIR 2000 Madhya Pradesh 38= 2000(2) MPHT 477 ], Hindi is the authorized language for the use of Bills and Rules passed in Madhya Pradesh. Therefore, if the English version is not happily worded and ambiguous, the Hindi version can be read for resolving the ambiguity and for correctly interpreting any rules made. {See: Park Leather Industry (P) Ltd. v. State of U.P. [JT 2001(2) SC 577, p.588]}. In the English version of rule 3 the word "or" is clearly a mistake for "on". Similarly, the word "sale" is also a mistake for the word "sells". These mistakes get clarified by reading the Hindi version. {See: Park Leather Industry (P) Ltd. v. State of U.P. [JT 2001(2) SC 577, p.588]}. In the English version of rule 3 the word "or" is clearly a mistake for "on". Similarly, the word "sale" is also a mistake for the word "sells". These mistakes get clarified by reading the Hindi version. According to rule 3 every person, businessman, establishment and the licence holder under: he Madhya Pradesh Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 is responsible of collect the terminal tax on the goods at the rates specified in the Schedule f he himself exports any goods as shown in the Schedule or sells for the purpose of export. Rule 4 requires such person to deposit in the Municipal freasury the amount of terminal tax collected during the last month on he goods exported from the Municipal limits through their establishment long with the return upto 10th day of every month. The rules do not on template any other mode of recovery of terminal tax. 7. Reading of section 189- A of the Act reveals that mode of recovery f taxes under that provision is subject to the condition and limitation prescribed by the rules. On proper interpretation, this provision means 1at if the rules prescribe any other method of recovery and do not contemplate the recovery of taxes by public auction, private contract or lease, the taxes cannot be recovered by such means and the mode of recovery as prescribed by the rules must be followed. The petitioners are essentially the employees of Corporation and if their salaries are not paid they have to claim the same from the Corporation but they have no locus standi to challenge the mode of recovery prescribed by the rules and to insist that terminal tax can be collected by the system of Naka or barrier. The rules do not provide for the collection by Naka or barrier system. In the case of Mool ji Bhai and others (supra), this Court has already held that the rules were aimed at abolishing the Naka or barrier system as "that was very inconvenient to everyone and was also a source of harassment and corruption ." 8. The petitioners have also not challenged the validity of the rules 3 and 4. 9. In the case of Mool ji Bhai and others (supra), this Court has already held that the rules were aimed at abolishing the Naka or barrier system as "that was very inconvenient to everyone and was also a source of harassment and corruption ." 8. The petitioners have also not challenged the validity of the rules 3 and 4. 9. For these reasons, Writ Petition No.4196/2005 fails and is dismissed and Writ Petition No.3990/2005 is allowed with a direction that the Corporation (respondent No.2) shall not recover the terminal tax by system of Naka or barrier.