S. H. SHETH, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners are challenging in this petition the vires of sec. 1 (5) of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act 1948 According to them it offends Arts 245 and 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution of India. The second challenge which the petitioners have raised is to the notification issued by the State Government under sec. 1 (5) applying the provisions of the said Act to the area under Jasdan Nagar Panchayat. ( 2 ) ). So far as the constitutional challenge to sec. 1 (5) is concerned Mr. Raval who appears on behalf of the petitioners has advanced three arguments. Firstly it lays no guide-lines within which the delegate can act. Secondly it does not provide for appropriate publication of the notification for the benefit of those who are likely to be affected by it. Thirdly it does not have any provision for consultation with the members of the public. ( 3 ) ). Sec. 1 of the Act in so far as its applicability is concerned divides the local areas in three parts. Firstly there are those which are specified in Schedule I to the Act. To those local areas the Act applies proprio vigore. Secondly there are local areas having a population of 25 0 or more. In respect of such areas the State Government is under an obligation to issue a notification directing that all or any of the provisions of the Act shall apply to such local areas. In respect of local areas where the population is less than 25 0 it is left by sub-sec. (5) of sec. 1 to the State Government to apply all or any of the provisions of the Act. Sub-sec. (5) of sec. 1 reads thus:"the State Government may also by a like notification direct that all or any of the provisions of this Act shall come into force in such local areas having population less than twenty-five thousand as may be specified in the notification. "so far as the first argument is concerned we find no substance in it because in smaller local areas having population of less than 10 0 local conditions may vary from area to area. It was therefore not necessary for the Legislature to lay down any specific guide-lines. "so far as the first argument is concerned we find no substance in it because in smaller local areas having population of less than 10 0 local conditions may vary from area to area. It was therefore not necessary for the Legislature to lay down any specific guide-lines. The State Government as its delegate is required to consider local conditions prevailing in such local areas and decide whether all or any of the provisions of the Act should be applied to any of them. It cannot be gainsaid that local conditions vary from area to area. Therefore the applicability of all or any of the provisions of the Act must depend upon the local conditions in each of such local areas. ( 4 ) ). Mr. Trivedi who appears on behalf of the State-respondent No. 1 has invited our attention to the administrative guide-lines which have been issued by the State Government in this behalf. They provide that the provisions of the Act may be applied to those areas in which the number of persons who are employed in business concerns is 100 or more. ( 5 ) ). The second argument which Mr. Raval has raised is that subsec. (5) of sec. 1 does not provide for appropriate publication of the notification issued thereunder. The section provides for the publication of the notification in the Official Gazette which ensures authenticity and certainty. Such notifications are always published in the local newspapers for the information of the people. Therefore we cannot say that subsec. (5) of sec. 1 is ultra vires any constitutional provision. ( 6 ) ). The third argument which Mr. Raval has raised is that sub-sec (5) of sec. 1 does not provide for any consultation with the persons who are likely to be affected thereby. We cannot say on this ground that the said sun-section is ultra vires any constitutional provision. Nor do Articles 245 and 19 (1) (f) lay shown an obligation for the Legislature to provide for such consultation by its delegate before the latter declares a local area as one to which the provisions of a particular Act may be applied. ( 7 ) ). In substance the three arguments which Mr. Raval has raised amount to saying that there is excessive delegation of power under subsec. (5) of sec. 1 by the State Legislature to the State Government. ( 7 ) ). In substance the three arguments which Mr. Raval has raised amount to saying that there is excessive delegation of power under subsec. (5) of sec. 1 by the State Legislature to the State Government. We do not think that it is so. ( 8 ) ). So far as the rest is concerned we find no constitutional obligation for the State Legislature to provide for any such thing when it confers power upon the State Government to do a particular ministerial act. We therefore see no constitutional infirmity in sub-sec. (5) of sec. 1 The constitutional challenge raised to sub-sec. (5) of. sec. 1 therefore fails and is rejected. ( 9 ) ). The second contention which Mr. Raval has raised is directed against the validity of the notification under which the provisions of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act 1948 have been made applicable to Jasdan with effect from 1st November 1980. His first argument is that the notification is bad because no objections were invited by the State Government from the persons likely to be affected thereby before issuing the impugned notification. There is no such obligation cast upon the State Government by the Legislature. Therefore in absence of any statutory obligation of such a kind it cannot be said that the impugned notification suffers from any such infirmity. Petition dismissed. .