Judgment :- 1. These two Writ Appeals have been filed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 8 91980 allowing O.P No. 2636 of 1980 filed by the common respondents in these two writ appeals and quashing the notification Ext. P2 dated 24 111979 issued by the Director of Municipalities, Trivandrum, effecting a de-limitation of the wards of the newly constituted Pathanamthitta Municipality and specifying which amongst those wards are the reserved wards for women and for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, as well as the order Ext. P3 passed by the Director of Municipalities rejecting a representation dated 23 21980 filed by the petitioner requesting that the fixation of ward No. 20 as the reserved ward for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes should be modified. 2. Pathanamthitta was a Panchayat until recently but on 25 91978 the Government ordered it to be constituted into a Municipality. S.56 of the Kerala Municipalities Act„ hereinafter called the Act, provides: "56. Election of municipal councillors: (1) For the purposes of election of councillors to a municipal council the Government, after consulting the municipal council and after previous publication and hearing of objections, if any, may, by notification (a) divide the municipality into as many wards as there are councillors notified under sub-section (1) of S.7: Provided that the population of each ward shall as far as possible, be equal: (b) determine the ward or wards in which the seat or seats, if any, shall be reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes under sub-section (3) of S.7 and for women under sub-section (6) of S.7. The powers of the State Government under the aforesaid Section have been delegated to the Director of Municipalities By the notification Ext. P1 dated 29-6-1979 the Director of Municipalities published proposals relating to the de-limitation of wards of the new Municipality of Pathanamthitta and also specifying therein which wards were proposed to be designated as reserved wards for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and for women. In the said notification ward No. 17 was shown as the ward proposed to be reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Ext. In the said notification ward No. 17 was shown as the ward proposed to be reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Ext. P1 contains the recital that if any person desired to submit or put forward any objections or representations concerning the de-limitation of wards proposed therein such objections or representations should be sent to the Director of Municipalities, Trivandrum, so as to reach him before 28-7-1979. 3. The writ petitioner is a person residing in the locality which falls within the proposed ward No. 20 of the new Municipality. According to him, he had the intention of standing for election for membership of the Municipal Council from the said ward and his chances were quite bright. All those hopes were however completely shattered when the petitioner found that by the final notification issued as per Ext P2 dated 24-11-1979, ward No. 20 has been fixed as the reserved ward for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes with the consequence that the petitioner who is not a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community is denied an opportunity to stand for election from the said ward. According to the petitioner the procedure followed by the Director of Municipalities (2nd respondent in the O P.) in finalising the de-limitation of wards was illegal inasmuch as he had not complied with the mandatory requirement of S.56(1) of the Act that there should be a due publication of the objections put forward, to the proposals contained in the preliminary notification and a public hearing of the objections before the proposals are finalised. It was mainly on this ground that the petitioner sought to quash Exts. P2 and P3. 4. The learned Single Judge upheld the contention of the petitioner that under S 56 (1) of the Act there is a mandatory obligation cast on the authority effecting the delimitation to publish the objections received in response to the preliminary notification containing the proposals regarding de-limitation and thereafter to conduct a public hearing of the objections. Inasmuch as this requirement had not been complied with in the present case, the learned Single Judge held that the notification Ext. P2 and the order Ext. P3 could not be sustained as valid or legal. It was on this basis that the O. P. was allowed by the learned Single Judge. 5. Inasmuch as this requirement had not been complied with in the present case, the learned Single Judge held that the notification Ext. P2 and the order Ext. P3 could not be sustained as valid or legal. It was on this basis that the O. P. was allowed by the learned Single Judge. 5. W. A. No. 291 of 1980 has been filed jointly by the State of Kerala and the Director of Municipalities, Trivandrum challenging the legality and correctness of the aforesaid decision rendered by the learned Single Judge. Writ Appeal No. 292 of 1980 is an appeal separately filed by the Special Officer, Pathanamthitta Municipality against the same judgment. 6. The learned Advocate-General appearing on behalf of the appellants in W. A. No. 291 of 1980 contended before us that the view, taken by the learned Single Judge that under S.56 (1) it is mandatory that the objections filed by interested parties against the proposals published as per the preliminary notification issued under the Section should also be published, is not correct or warranted. It was submitted by the learned Advocate General that the previous publication referred to in the Section is only of the proposals for delimitation and there is nothing in the Section which creates an obligation on the State Government or its delegate to publish the objections received against the proposals. The counsel appearing for the respondents reiterated the submissions made by him before the learned Single Judge that it is mandatory under the provisions of sub-section (1) of S.56 that not merely the original proposals but also the objections received against those proposals should also be published. 7. On a careful reading of the Section, it appears to us that the expression, 'previous publication' occurring in sub-section (1) of S 56 can be related only to the proposals formulated by the Government regarding the division of Municipality into wards and the fixation of the ward or wards in which the seat or seats, if any, shall be reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and for women. What is intended by the Section is that there should be previous publication of such proposals and a hearing of the objections that may be received consequent on such previous publication of the proposals. What is intended by the Section is that there should be previous publication of such proposals and a hearing of the objections that may be received consequent on such previous publication of the proposals. The requirements imposed by sub-section (1) are: (1) Consultation with the Municipal Council (2) previous publication (3) hearing of objections, if any, and only after compliance with these requirements can a final notification effecting delimitation and fixation of the reserved wards be published. If we are to accept the argument of the writ petitioner's advocate that the section has to be read as 'after previous publication of objections and hearing of objections' the result would be that there will be no requirement at ail in the Section for publication of the proposals for delimitation formulated by the Government. Such a construction, in our opinion, would result in defeating the intention and purpose of the Section which, as we understand it, is that the proposals formulated by the Government should be published, that parties interested should be given an opportunity to file objections and that the final decision in the matter should be taken only after hearing of such objections. We are accordingly of the view that the requirement of previous publication is only in respect of the delimitation proposals and there is no requirement that the objections received should be published. We are therefore unable, with respect, to agree with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge that the non-publication of the objections received in response to Ext. P1 constituted an illegality and Exts. P2 and P3 are liable to be quashed on that ground. 8. There is, however, another aspect having a vital bearing on the validity of the notification Ext P2 which was seriously pressed before us by the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner. He contended that since the proposal contained in the notification Ext. P2 and P3 are liable to be quashed on that ground. 8. There is, however, another aspect having a vital bearing on the validity of the notification Ext P2 which was seriously pressed before us by the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner. He contended that since the proposal contained in the notification Ext. P1 was to designate Ward No. 17 as the reserved ward for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, the petitioner had no occasion to file any objections against the said proposal and if it was thereafter proposed in the light of the objections received from other parties to effect any modification in the original proposal and fix a ward other than Ward No 17 as the reserved ward for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, natural justice and fairness required that all persons interested in the matter should have been afforded an opportunity to make their representation concerning the same. In this context it was urged before us by the learned Advocate for the writ-petitioner (1st respondent in these appeals) that there was no public notice at all given about the date or place of hearing of the objections received against the proposals contained in Ext. P1 and hence the petitioner was deprived of any opportunity to make his representation before the Director of Municipalities who had exercised his functions under S.56 (1). In answer to this contention, it was submitted before us by the learned Advocate-General that a notice intimating that the hearing of the objections would be conducted at the Municipal Office, Pathanamthitta, on 3101979 had been affixed on the notice board of the Municipal Office in Pathanamthitta on the 29th of September 1979. It was contended that such publication on the notice board constituted adequate notice to all persons interested so as to enable them to put forward any representations which they wanted to make concerning the matter. It was contended that such publication on the notice board constituted adequate notice to all persons interested so as to enable them to put forward any representations which they wanted to make concerning the matter. Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, however, pointed out before us that 30th of September 1979 as well as Ist of October and 2nd of October were all public holidays and hence even if it is to be assumed for purposes of argument, that the requirements of law would be satisfied by a publication effected on the notice board of the Municipality, on the actual facts and circumstances of this case, the said publication had not been served any purpose since all the three intervening days were public holidays on which the Municipal Office remained closed. We find there is substance in this submission. Hence it is not possible to accept the contention advanced by the learned Advocate-General that adequate opportunity had been extended to all persons interested by publishing a notice in the notice board of the Municipality on 29th of September intimating about the hearing to be held on the 3rd of October when the three intervening days were all public holidays. 9. Thus the factual situation in this case is that no effective opportunity had been extended to the writ petitioner and other persons interested to put forward their representations on the question as to how the de-limitation of wards should be effected inclusive of the selection of the ward to be fixed as the reservation ward for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes 10. In this connection, we may notice the contention taken by the learned Advocate-General that on the express terms of the Section (S 56 (1) ), the hearing contemplated is only of the objections filed against the proposal notified by the preliminary notification and the requirements of law will be fully complied with if notice of the date of hearin is given to the persons who had filed objections. We are unable to accept this contention as correct. We are unable to accept this contention as correct. What the Legislature has intended in enacting S.56(1) is that the delimitation should be effected only after affording an opportunity to all persons interested to make their representations and it is for this purpose that provision has been made for previous publication of the proposals, invitation of objections and hearing of objections If, after hearing the objections, a revision of the original proposal is considered necessary, the revised proposal will again have to be published and objections invited against the same unless even at the time of consideration of the objections against the original proposals, all persons interested are given an opportunity to make their representations. The latter process will eliminate unnecessary repetition of the process of publication and invitation of objections and thereby help to eliminate protraction and delay of the de-limitation process Hence it is that we consider it reasonable to construe the Section as requiring that the hearing of objections should be after publication of a notice intimating all persons interested that the hearing would be conducted at the specified time and place on the specified date, so that whoever is interested in making representations, may appear and put forward his representation on that occasion. Since there is no specification in the Act or the Rules as to the manner in which alone such a publication should be made, all that can be insisted upon is that the mode adopted should be such as will effectively bring the matter to the notice of all the persons likely to be interested. This procedure has not been followed in the present case and that has resulted in the writ petitioner having a legitimate grievance that he had no opportunity at all to make any representations regarding the revised proposal to fix Ward No. 20 as the reserved ward for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. 11. Mention has already been made by us that on the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the publication of the notice on the notice board of the Municipality effected on the 29th of September 1979cannot be regarded as valid or adequate compliance with the legal requirement referred to by us above. Hence, the delimitation effected as per Ext P2 cannot be regarded as valid, and Ext. Hence, the delimitation effected as per Ext P2 cannot be regarded as valid, and Ext. P2 will remain quashed though on a ground totally different from what has been stated by the learned Single Judge. 12. The learned Advocate-General submitted before us that the proceedings may be allowed to continue from the stage which they had reached as on 29th of September 1979 when the notice was published on the notice board. It was submitted before us by the learned Advocate-General that in order to expedite matters in this case where the election to the Municipality has already been held up for a considerable length of time, the Director of Municipalities will immediately cause a notice to be published in one issue of the Malayala Manorama daily paper (Kottayam Edition) specifying the date and time at which the objections will be taken up for hearing and making it clear that not merely the objectors but all the persons interested may make their representations at the said hearing. We consider that this would constitute adequate compliance with the requirements of law, and the proceedings can be so continued by the Director from the stage which they had reached as on 29th of September 1979. The Writ Appeals are disposed of as above. The parties will bear their respective costs.