JUDGMENT M.S. Menon, J. 1. These petitions and appeal were heard together and can be disposed of by a common judgment. They relate to the validity of the requisitioning of certain irrigation works by the Government of Kerala under the Travancore-Cochin Requisitioning and Acquisition of Property Act, 1955 (Act I of 1956). 2. The power of requisitioning is conferred by S.3 of the Act. On 8-2-1958 notices were issued by the Government calling upon the owners and persons in possession to show cause within 15 days of the service of the notices why the irrigation works concerned should not be requisitioned for the purpose mentioned in the notices, namely, "for affording better irrigational facilities to the cultivators and for the more equitable distribution of water for irrigation purposes." The notices made it clear that the Government were of opinion that the irrigation works should be requisitioned for that purpose and said : "Representation or objections, if any, may be made to the Collector of Palghat who has been invested with the powers of Government under Sub-s.(2) of S.3 and S.4 and 5 of the said Act." 3. On 29-7-1958 the Collector issued a notice requisitioning the irrigation works described in the schedule to that notice. The notice, omitting the schedule, reads as follows:-- "Whereas the Government are of opinion, that the private anicuts specified in the schedule annexed to this order are needed for a public purpose, not being a purpose of the Union, to wit for affording better irrigational facilities to the cultivators and for the more equitable distribution of water for irrigation purposes, And whereas the Government are also of opinion that the said private anicuts should he requisitioned for the said public purpose, And whereas after considering the cause and objections put forth by the owners and persons in possession thereof and am satisfied that it is expedient to requisition the anicuts specified in the schedule attached to this order, Now in exercise of the powers conferred on the Government by sub-section (2) of S.3 of the Travancore-Cochin Requisitioning and Acquisition of Property Act, 1955 (Act I of 1956) and delegated to me under S.17 of the Act, by the Notification IR3-20938/57/PW. dated 8-2-1958 published in the Kerala Gazette dated 11-2-1958, I Shri K. C. Sankaranarayanan, I. A. S., District Collector, Palghat, hereby order that the private anicuts specified in the schedule shall be requisitioned." 4. dated 8-2-1958 published in the Kerala Gazette dated 11-2-1958, I Shri K. C. Sankaranarayanan, I. A. S., District Collector, Palghat, hereby order that the private anicuts specified in the schedule shall be requisitioned." 4. The file discloses that in between the two notices the Collector gave the fullest opportunity to the parties concerned to make their representations, that those representations were considered by him, and that it was only after considering those representations that the second of the two notices was issued. In these circumstances we do not see any reason why the order of requisitioning should be upset. The affording of better irrigational facilities to the cultivators and the more equitable distribution of water for irrigation purposes are certainly public purposes and the action taken cannot in any sense be considered as one beyond the powers conferred by the Act. 5. The preamble to the notice of 29-7-1958 says "private anicuts specified in the schedule" and the heading of the schedule is "Description of Irrigation Works." It was suggested that "anicuts" and "irrigation works" are different and that the notice is defective on that account. We entertain no doubt that both the expressions were used to denote the same type of property, namely, the irrigation systems with which we are concerned. 6. S.17 of the Travancore-Cochin Requisitioning and Acquisition of Property Act, 1955, provides for the delegation of powers. Sub-s.(1) of that section says: "The Government may, by notification in the Gazette, direct that any power conferred on them by or under this Act shall, in such circumstances and under such conditions, if any, as may be specified in the notification, be exercisable also by an officer or authority subordinate to the Government". It is not disputed that the powers of the Government under sub-s.(2) of S.3 and S.4, 5, 6, 13 and 14 of the Act were delegated to the Collector of Palghat by a notification of the Government dated 8-2-1958 and published in the Kerala Gazette dated 11-2-1958. 7. Sub-s.(2) of S.17 says : "All notifications issued under sub-s.(1) shall be laid, as soon as may be possible, before the Legislative Assembly". It is common ground that the notification mentioned in the last preceding paragraph was not laid before the Legislative Assembly as contemplated by this sub-section. 7. Sub-s.(2) of S.17 says : "All notifications issued under sub-s.(1) shall be laid, as soon as may be possible, before the Legislative Assembly". It is common ground that the notification mentioned in the last preceding paragraph was not laid before the Legislative Assembly as contemplated by this sub-section. It is contended that the failure to do so is fatal to the validity of the delegation, and that consequently the notice of 29-7-1958 and all the subsequent proceedings by the Collector in pursuance thereof should be treated as of no effect. 8. The answer to the controversy depends on whether the provision embodied in sub-s.(2) of S.17 is directory or imperative in character. As pointed out by Alien : "If a provision is held to be imperative, failure to comply with it wholly invalidates action which purports to have been taken under it. It is 'of the essence' of the legislative purpose, and if it is disregarded, it cuts away the foundation from the attempted proceeding.............. If, on the other hand, the provision is held to be directory only, failure to comply with it, though it may expose the responsible person to a penalty, does not invalidate the whole proceeding or transaction, not even if there is no known penalty which can be applied to the person in fault nor any remedy for a person aggrieved." (Law and Orders, 2nd Edition, Page 165). The distinction is fundamental in determining the effect of any statutory provision. If the statute indicates the effect of non compliance, there will be no problem of interpretation. It is in cases like the one before us where the Legislature rests content with merely giving its command, and says nothing about the consequences of disobedience that difficulties arise. 9. S.17 does not provide for any affirmative or negative resolution by the Legislature and there is no doubt that the notification under sub-s.(1) of that section will come into effect on the date of its publication in the Gazette. It is not stated in the Act that the omission to comply with the provision of sub-s.(2) will in any way affect the validity of the notification or its continued operation. 10. It is not stated in the Act that the omission to comply with the provision of sub-s.(2) will in any way affect the validity of the notification or its continued operation. 10. In these circumstances we cannot but hold that the provision is only directory in character, that the notification of 8-2-1958 issued by the Government is valid and operative, and that the acts of the Collector in pursuance thereof -- and impugned before us -- have to be sustained. 11. There is a full discussion of the comment and case law bearing on the subject in AIR 1956 Andhra 129 and we consider it unnecessary to cover the same ground in this judgment. In that case the court said: "Where the statute makes the laying of the rules before Parliament a condition precedent or the resolution of the Parliament a condition subsequent, there is no difficulty as, in the former case, the rule has no legal force at all till the condition precedent is complied with and in the latter case, it ceased to have force from the date of non compliance with the condition subsequent. Nor can there be any difficulty in a case where the Parliament or the Legislature, as the case may be, specifically prescribes the legal effect of non compliance with that condition. But more important question arises when the Parliament directs the laying of the rules before the Parliament without providing for the consequences of non compliance with the rule. As aforesaid, learned authors are inclined to take different views on the effect of non compliance with such a rule. We must concede there is force in the view expressed by Bernard Schwartz in his book on 'The Law and Executive in Britain' that the rule is mandatory. But, after considering the question carefully, we are inclined to adopt the view that, in the case of a statute directing rules to be laid before the Parliament or the Legislature without any condition attached, the rule is only directory." 12. Counsel for the petitioner in O. P. No. 45 of 1959 submitted that a portion of the irrigation system involved in that petition was and is in the State of Madras and that no action can validly be taken in respect of the said portion of the irrigation system under the Travancore-Cochin Requisitioning and Acquisition of Property Act, 1955. Counsel for the petitioner in O. P. No. 45 of 1959 submitted that a portion of the irrigation system involved in that petition was and is in the State of Madras and that no action can validly be taken in respect of the said portion of the irrigation system under the Travancore-Cochin Requisitioning and Acquisition of Property Act, 1955. If the submission is correct, there can be no doubt that the Act and any action taken under it cannot possibly apply to that portion of the irrigation system and we make it clear that such is the case. 13. Subject to the clarification made in paragraph 12 above, the petitions and appeal will stand dismissed, though in the circumstances of the case without any order as to costs.