G.S. SINGHVI, J.—A short, but interesting question arises for decision in this writ petition. The question is, as to whether the Rajasthan Fisheries (Amendment) Rules, 1990 are liable to be struck down on the ground that the same have not been framed in accordance with the provisions of section 5 of the Rajasthan Fisheries Act, 1953 (hereinafter to be referred as 1953 Act)- 2. The petitioner is a society registered under the Registration of Societies Act, 1958. The society through its Secretary Alladin has filed this writ petition. The petitioner society claims to be representing the interests of the poor fishermen including their cooperative societies spread all over the State. 3. According to the averments made in the petition, the respondent No. 1 published draft amendment in the Rajasthan Fisheries Rules, 1958 vide Notification published in the Rajasthan Gazette (Part III-B) dated September 11, 1990 inviting objections to the proposed amendment in the Rules, within a period of 7 days from the date of publication. The draft amendment was actually not published on 11.9.1990, but was published on 14.9.1990. Having come to know about the contemplated amendment, representations were made to the State Government on 6.9.1990. A copy of this representation was furnished to the respondent No. 2, namely, the Director of Fisheries on 11.9.1990 and objections were raised against the proposed amendment. Two more representations/objection petitions were submitted to the State Government on 21.9.1990. i.e. within the stipulated period of 7 days from the date of publication of the notification on 14.9.90. These representations were received by the respondents on 21.9.1990. According to the averments made in the petition, a news item was published in the daily News-paper Rashtra Doot of October 4, 1990 containing a statement that the amendments in the Rajasthan Fisheries Rules, 1958 have been published in the official Gazette of 11.9.1990 and the same have been finalised as no objection had been received against the proposed amendments. After reading the said news item, the Secretary of the petitioner society and others went to the office of the respondent No. 2 on 4.10.1990 to procure the copies of the amended rules. But the officers of the Department informed the Secretary of the petitioner and others that the Gazette notification amended rules has not been published so far. After reading the said news item, the Secretary of the petitioner society and others went to the office of the respondent No. 2 on 4.10.1990 to procure the copies of the amended rules. But the officers of the Department informed the Secretary of the petitioner and others that the Gazette notification amended rules has not been published so far. The Secretary of the petitioner and others visited the office of the respondent No. 2 on 4th and 5.10.1990 and demanded tender forms along with information regarding fixation of reserve price of each Bandh/Bandhas scheduled for auction on 10th, 11th and 12th October 1990. However, they were told that neither tender forms are ready nor the reserve prices have been fixed. Further averment of the petitioner is that without making available the tender forms and without making public the reserve price so fixed for each Bandha the respondent No. 2 invited tenders for auctioning the fishing rights for the financial year 1990-91 vide Tender Notice No. F. 2 (7)/ Accounts/Theka/90-91/1991 dated 20.9.1990 presumable under the amended rules, 1990. The petitioner has raised legal submissions to challenge the legality and constitutionality of the Rajasthan Fisheries (Amendment) Rules, 1990. 4. When this case was listed before this court on 10.10.1990 for admission, the learned Additional Government Advocate appeared on behalf of the Additional Advocate General and requested for supply of copies of the writ petition and also requested for adjournment. The case was adjourned to 12.10.1990 and the respondents were directed not to accept or reject to tenders submitted by any of the parties. 5. A reply has been filed by the respondents. In the reply, the respondents have, in the first, challenged the locus standi of the petitioner to file the present petition by alleging that the petitioner cannot claim to be looking after or representing the interests of fishermen and their co-operative socieities. In fact the Sangh is a hand work of some individuals, who for their own vested interests have filed the present writ petition. According the respondents, the rules have been amended to augment the State revenue and serve the large public good. Further it has been asserted in the reply that under 1953 Act, the State Government is empowered to make Rules to control, regulate and settle the fishing rights and to classify the waters after prior publication. According the respondents, the rules have been amended to augment the State revenue and serve the large public good. Further it has been asserted in the reply that under 1953 Act, the State Government is empowered to make Rules to control, regulate and settle the fishing rights and to classify the waters after prior publication. To meet out the requirements of Section 5 of 1953 Act, the draft Rules were sent to the Government Press for Publication in the Official Gazette on 11.9.1990. The draft Rules were immediately published but the general copies were issued on 14.9.1990. Although the objections were invited from the public at large, no objection whatsoever was received till 20.09.1990, when the Rules were finalised and were sent for publication in their final form to the Government Press and the Rules were so framed by the Government Press in the Official Gazette. The allegation that the draft Rules were in fact published on 14.9.1990 and not on 11.9.1990, has been denied. According to the respondents, even if the period was less, it was not enough to invalidate the Rules. The respondents have stated that the representation dated 6.9.90 was received. It was considered and filed. The representation dated 21.9.1990 was received by the respondents after the rules were finalised and were sent for final publication and after final publication of the rules, there was no occasion for any one to represent against the draft rules. The allegation of the petitioner that its Secretary had approached the respondent No. 2, on 4.10.1990 and asked for the copy of the amended rules, has been denied. It is also denied that the tender forms were not available on 4/5.10.1990 and that the reserve price had not been fixed. Notice inviting tenders had been issued under the amended rules. In the additional pleas, the respondents have again questioned the bona fides of the petitioner and has alleged that the petition has been filed to save the vested interest and to protest their clandestine operations. 6. During the course of hearing, the learned Additional Advocate General placed on record a copy of the Note-sheet sent by the Superintendent, Government Press to the Deputy Secretary, Agriculture (Gr. IV) Rajasthan, Jaipur. In para 1 of this note- sheet, it has been recorded that vide letter No. F.5 (8) Agriculture 6/88 dated 11.9.1990 of the Deputy Secretary, Agriculture (Gr. During the course of hearing, the learned Additional Advocate General placed on record a copy of the Note-sheet sent by the Superintendent, Government Press to the Deputy Secretary, Agriculture (Gr. IV) Rajasthan, Jaipur. In para 1 of this note- sheet, it has been recorded that vide letter No. F.5 (8) Agriculture 6/88 dated 11.9.1990 of the Deputy Secretary, Agriculture (Gr. IV) Rajasthan Fisheries Amendment (Draft Rules) 1990 (Hindi/English) was received for publication in Part III B of the Gazette dated 11.9.1990. Accordingly, it was issued on 14.9.1990 by preparing it on priority basis and its copy was sent to the Department. In Para 2 of the note-sheet it is stated after issuance of the draft rules, the same was again received by the Department vide letter No. F-Agriculture (7) 4-6/88 dated 20.9.1990 after receipt of the objections for publication in para IV-C G.S.R. dated 20.9.1990. Accordingly, this too was prepared on priority basis and printed on 24.9.1990 and was issued on 1.10.1990 and extra copies were sent to the concerned Department. This note-sheet has been placed on the record of the writ petition. 7. Shri S.C. Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that there has been a clear breach of the requirements of previous publication as envisaged by Section 5 of 1953 Act read with Section 23 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which is par- materia with section 26 of the Rajasthan General Clauses Act, 1955. According to Shri Agrawal, the notification containing draft rules had in fact been published only on 14.9.1990 and copies were sent to the Department on the day, but it was made available to the public only on or after 18.09.1990 and even before the expiry of the period of 7 days fixed for receipt of objections, the final rules were sent for publication. Alternatively, he argued that even if it is taken to have been published on 14.9.1990, the time period of 7 days cannot be said to be reasonable time for inviting objections and in any event, the objections submitted up to 21.9.1990 ought to have been considered before sending the rules for final publication. The respondents have committed a serious error in ignoring the objections, which were admittedly filed on 21.9.1990. Shri Agrawal has placed reliance on the decision of this court in Automobile Transport Rajasthan (P) Ltd, V State of Rajasthan (1). 8. The respondents have committed a serious error in ignoring the objections, which were admittedly filed on 21.9.1990. Shri Agrawal has placed reliance on the decision of this court in Automobile Transport Rajasthan (P) Ltd, V State of Rajasthan (1). 8. Shri M.I. Khan, learned Additional Advocate General, on the other hand, submitted that there has been a complete compliance of the provisions of Section 5 of 1953 Act read with Sec. 26 of the Rajasthan General Clauses Act, 1955. According to him, once amendment rules 1990 were published in the official gazette after previous publication, it was a conclusive proof of the fact that the rules have been duly made and thereafter no other inquiry into the procedure followed in making of the Rules could be made by this court. Learned Additional Advocate General has placed reliance on Maula Bux V Appellate Tribunal, STA (2). 9. For the purpose of deciding the question, raised by the learned counsel for the parties, we may usefully refer to section 5 of 1953 Act and Sections 10 and 26 of the Rajasthan General Clauses Act, 1955: Section 5 of 1953 Act : "5. Power to make rules :- (1) The State Government may, after previous publication make rules for the purposes hereinafter in this section mentioned and may in such rules declare the waters, not being private waters, to which all or any of them shall apply. (2) The State Government may also by notification in the Official Gazette, apply such rules or any of them to any private waters with the consent in writing of the owner thereof and of all persons having for the time being any exclusive right of fishery therein. (3) Such rules may- (a) Prohibit or regulate all or any of the following matters, that is to say- (i) the erection and use of fixed engines; (ii) the construction, temporary or permanent, of weirs, dams and bunds, (iii) the dimensions and kinds of the nets to be used and the modes of using them; (iv) the methods of catching fish. (b) Prohibit, the destruction of, or any attempt to destroy, fish by guns, bows, arrows, and like, (c) prohibit the destruction of, or any attempt to destroy fish by using any substance likely to cause pollution of water; (d) prohibit the throwing into any water of any solid or liquid substance harmful to fish; (e) regulate the grant of fishing licences the fees payable therefore and the conditions to be inserted therein; (f) prescribe the seasons in which the killing, catching or sale of fish of any prescribed species shall be prohibited; and (g) prescribe the minimum size or weight below which no fish of any prescribed species shall be killed or sold. (4) Such rules may also prohibit all fishing in any specified water of specified period. (5) In making any rule under this section the State Government may provide for- (a) the seizure, removal and forfeiture of any fixed engine or apparatus erected or used for fishing in contravention of the rules; and (b) the forfeiture of any fish taken by means of any such fixed engine of apparatus." General Clauses Act, 1955 Section 10 Commencement and termination of time :- In any Rajasthan Law it shall be sufficient, for the purpose of excluding the first in a serious of days or any other period of time, to use the word from and for the purpose of including the last in a serious of days or any other period of time, to use the word to. Section 26 Provisions applicable to making of rules, etc. Section 26 Provisions applicable to making of rules, etc. after previous publication, Where, by any Rajasthan law, a power to make rules, regulations of bye-laws is expressed to be given subject to the condition of the rules, regulations or bye-laws being made after previous publication, then unless such law otherwise provides, the following provisions shall apply, namely :- (1) the authority having power to make the rules, regulations or bye laws shall before making them, publish a draft of the proposed rules, regulations or bye-laws for the information of persons likely to be affected thereby; (2) the publication shall be made in such manner, as that authority deems to be sufficient, or, if the condition with respect to previous publication so requires, in such manner as the government prescribes; (3) There shall be published with the draft a notice specifying a date on or after which the draft will be taken into consideration. (4) The authority haring power to make the rules, regulations or bye laws, and where the rules, regulations or bye laws are to be made with the samition, approval or concurrence of another authority that authority also, shall consider any objection or suggestion which may be received the authority haring power to make the rules, regulations or bye laws from any person with respect to the draft before the date so specified; (5) the publication in the Rajasthan Gazette of a rule, regulation or bye-laws purporting to have been made in exercise of a power to make rules, regulations or bye-laws after previous publication shall be conclusive proof that the rule, regulation or bye-law has been duly made." 10. The provisions of the Rajasthan General Clauses Act, 1955 are applicable to the provisions of the Rajasthan Fisheries Act, 1953. Section 5 of 1953 Act empowers the State Government to make rules for the purposes mentioned in Section 5(2) after previous publication. The provisions of the Rajasthan General Clauses Act, 1955 are applicable to the provisions of the Rajasthan Fisheries Act, 1953. Section 5 of 1953 Act empowers the State Government to make rules for the purposes mentioned in Section 5(2) after previous publication. As per Section 26 of the General clauses Act, previous publication means (i) authority concerned must prepare a draft of the proposed rules or bye-laws for the information of the persons likely to be affected thereby (ii) manner of publication left by the authority concerned unless it is permitted by the Government, (iii) along with the draft rules, a notice must also be published specifying a date on or after which the draft is to come for consideration, (iv) the State authorities must consider such objections or suggestions, which may have been received before specifying the date and (v) after these requirements have been fulfilled for amendment of rules or bye laws as the case may be, is finalised, must be published in the Official Gazette and then certain presumption arises that rules or bye-laws have been duly made. 11. Now the crucial question is as to what meaning should be ascribed to the word publication. According to Blacks Law Dictionary (Revised Fourth Edition) page 1396, publication means to make public, to make known to people in general; to bring before public, to exhibit; to display, disclose or reveal. The act of publishing anything offering it to public notice, or rendering it accessible to public scrutiny, advising of public; making known of something to them for a purpose; as descriptive of publishing laws. In Chicage V MCcoy (3) it has been held as under :- "As descriptive of publishing of laws and Ordinances, it means printing or otherwise reproducing copies of them and distributing them in such a manner as to make their contents easily accessible to the public. In Chicage V MCcoy (3) it has been held as under :- "As descriptive of publishing of laws and Ordinances, it means printing or otherwise reproducing copies of them and distributing them in such a manner as to make their contents easily accessible to the public. In Infabrics Ltd. V Jaytex Ltd. (4), it has been observed as under : "In relation to copyright, whether under cannon law or statute, "publishing" and "publications are fundamental expressions meaning making available to the public, and it would take a great deal of contextual restraint to force them into a narrower and special meaning." In S. Siem V Rokendrao (5), the Division Bench of the Assam High Court held as under :- "The word publication in section 5 necessarily implies some act on the part of the authorities to give publicity to the result of the election. Mere knowledge of the petitioner about the result cannot be regarded as publication by the authorities concerned". 12. In jagjeet Singh V State of Rajasthan (6) a Division Bench of this Court observed that printing of notice in the official Gazette, which was not out of the press, cannot be deemed to be good notice to public at large. 13. The word publication came up for interpretation before the Honble Supreme Court in State of M.P. V Ram Raghuvir Prasad (7). In that case, the validity of the prescription of the State Text Book for rapid reading the item in syllabus for Secondary School was challenged before the High Court on the ground that it violated the provisions of Section 3 of the M.P. Prathmik Middle School Tatha Madhyamik Shiksha Pathya Pushtak Sambandhi Vyavastha Adhiniyam, 1973. The High Court of M.P. quashed the prescription of the book by holding that there was no publication. The State of M.P. challenged the decision of the High Court. While upholding the judgment of the High Court, the Supreme Court observed as under :- "In our view, the purpose of Sec. 3 animates the meaning of expression publish is the act of publishing anything; offering it to public notice, or rendering it accessible to public scrutiny...an advising of the public; a making known of some thing to them for a purpose. "Logomachic exercises need not detain us because the obvious legislative object is to ensure that when the Board lays down the Syllabi it must publish the same so that when the stage of prescribing text books according to such syllabi arrives, both the publishers and the State Government and even the educationists among the public may have some precise conception about the relevant syllabi to enable Government to decide upon suitable text books from the private market or compiled under S. 5 by the State Government itself. In our view, therefore, "publication" to the educational world is the connotation of the expression. Even the student and the teaching community may have to know what the relevant syllabus for a subject is, which means wider publicity than minimal communication to the departmental officialdom." The Court further observed :- "Necessarily publication is important and we should insist that the State Government should not dismiss it as a ritual of little moment. As we have earlier indicated, but may repeat for emphasis that there is an object in publishing the syllabi and this public purpose will be stultified to the prejudice of the school going community if the syllabi are not made known to the public generally. Only when they come to know about the syllabi prescribed representatives in the educational field or in the public sector may be able to tell the State Government what type of text books are available, what kinds of books will make for excellence in teaching and what manner of material will promote the interests of the students in the subjects of study. If there are existing text books, Government may give opinion of experts on their worth. Government may pay attention to the cost of the books so made available, their readability, their design and arrangement, the impression that they may produce on the plastic minds and a host of other factors. All these possibilities may be frustrated if the syllabi are not published." 14. The requirements of previous publication has been laid down by the Legislature with the intention that the persons who are likely to be affected by the proposed rules, regulation or bye - laws or any amendment therein, may make representation to the competent authority and .convince it against the making of rules, regulations or bye-laws or amendments therein. 15. The requirements of previous publication has been laid down by the Legislature with the intention that the persons who are likely to be affected by the proposed rules, regulation or bye - laws or any amendment therein, may make representation to the competent authority and .convince it against the making of rules, regulations or bye-laws or amendments therein. 15. The idea underlying the concept of previous publication may not be exactly synonymous with the compliance of the principles of natural justice, but none the less the object of the previous publication is to make known to the public or particular section of public that there is a proposal to frame particular set of rules, regulations of bye-laws or to make amendment therein, so that the public or a section of it may represent or give suggestions that a particular rule, regulation or bye-law will not serve the purpose of the act or would be detrimental to the public good or would defeat the object of the law. The suggestions made may also come as to how the public cause would serve by making a particular rule, regulation or bye law or amendment therein. In our view, the compliance of requirements of previous publication as contemplated by Section 25 (3) read with Sec. 26 of the General Clauses Act is a must and in the absence of fulfilment of these requirements, the rules, regulations or bye-laws or amendment therein cannot be said to have been validly made. We are further of the view that mere sending a notice for Publication or more printing thereof cannot be treated as publication of the Gazette notification. Even sending of a printed notification to the departmental authorities cannot be equated with publication of the same. If mere printing or sending of the copies of printed notification to the departmental authorities as equated with the publication or is taken to be sufficient to meet the requirements of previous publication, whole object of the concept of previous publication would be defeated. In a given case, the printed notification may not at all come to the knowledge of the public or the departmental authorities to whom the printed copies of the notification are sent, may not take any steps to make it known to the public or the persons who are likely to be affected by the draft rules, regulations of bye-laws or amendments there of. Obviously, in such a situation, no representation or suggestion could possibly come from the persons likely to be affected. The provision of previous publication would thus be rendered nugatory. The interpretation of the term publication as put forward by the learned Addl. Advocate General would lead to an absurd result. In that event the authorities of the Govt. Press or the departmental authorities would keep the printed notification in their office and send the notification for final publication after expiry of the time limit by saying that no objection, representation or suggestion has been received. The requirement of previous publication would thus be reduced to a mere ritual. Such interpretation, which defeats the object of the provisions of Sec. 5 of 1953 Act read with Sec. 26 of the Raj. General Clauses Act, 1955 cannot be accepted. We are also of the view that whenever such rule, regulation or bye-law or any amendment thereof is made, in addition to the publication in the Gazette notification the departmental authorities shall take steps to publish the same in the news papers having a circulation in the entire State, so that the persons likely to be affected, who are residing in the various parts of the State to get a real opportunity to make representation or suggestion. We are not in the least suggesting that this is a mandatory requirement of Section 5 of 1953 Act, but it would be in the interest of public as well as the State that some such mode is adopted, so that the public living in the remotest corners of the State may come to know about such proposed rule, regulation or bye-laws or amendment thereof. 16. Now if we look into the facts of this case, it is clearly borne out that although the draft rules proposing amendments in the Rajasthan Fisheries Rules, 1958 had been sent to the Govt. Press, it was issued for the first time on 14.9.1990 and copy of the Gazette was sent to the Department on that day. Mere mention of the date 11.9.1990 on the Gazette Notification cannot, therefore, be conclusive proof of the fact that the draft rules had been published on 11.9.1990. We also find from the note-sheet sent by the Superintendent, Government Press that the final rules which had been sent on 20.9.90 were in fact printed on 24.9.1990 and were issued on 1.10.1990. Mere mention of the date 11.9.1990 on the Gazette Notification cannot, therefore, be conclusive proof of the fact that the draft rules had been published on 11.9.1990. We also find from the note-sheet sent by the Superintendent, Government Press that the final rules which had been sent on 20.9.90 were in fact printed on 24.9.1990 and were issued on 1.10.1990. Extra copies were sent to the concerned Department on 1.10.1990. The final notification also bears the date 20.09.1990. It is extremely surprising as to how the date 20 September, 1990 could be printed on the Gazette when it was printed only on 24.9.1990. I our view it is clearly a case of ante-dating the date of actual printing. No material has been placed on record by the learned Additional Advocate General, which could show that the Gazette containing draft rules had been printed on any day prior to 14.9.1990.Also no material has been placed on record to show that the Gazette notification containing draft rules had been made available to the public on any date prior to 14.9.1990. The date of making the Gazette notification containing draft rules available to the public, in our view, cannot be any date prior to 14.9.1990. Apparently, the Gazette had been printed only on 14.9.1990, although the date 11.9.1990 had been given on it. Even if, for a moment, it is assumed that it was printed on 11.9.1990 we cannot accept the submission of learned Addl. Advocate General that it was published on 11.9.1990. Even sending of copies to the Department on 14.9.1990 cannot be treated as publication of the draft rules. It is only when the draft rules are made available to the public, the same could be said to have been published. The manner in which the Government Press of the State Government has ante-dated the Gazette notification leave much to be desired. The acts made by the legislature, or rules, regulations, bye-laws etc, which are subordinate legislations enacted by the State Government and its agencies affect great number of persons of the in one or the other way. As in the present case, the date of publication has direct bearing to the question of validity of the delegated legislation. It is, therefore, necessary that only that date is given on the Gazette notification, on which it is actually printed. Ante-dating the Gazette notification deserves to be strongly deprecated. 17. As in the present case, the date of publication has direct bearing to the question of validity of the delegated legislation. It is, therefore, necessary that only that date is given on the Gazette notification, on which it is actually printed. Ante-dating the Gazette notification deserves to be strongly deprecated. 17. The next question, which arises for consideration is as to whether the respondents were justified in issuing the final amendment rules on 20.9.1990? An ancillary question, which arise for consideration is, as to whether the time of 7 days given for submission of objections, was reasonable and also as to whether the respondents were justified in ignoring the representations submitted on 21.9.1990. The object of pre-publishing the draft rules is obviously to inform the persons involved in fisheries business including the Co-operatives through out the Rajasthan about such rules or amendments thereof and to give them opportunity to submit their objections/representations. Even if,we believe that the Copy of the Gazette notification containing draft rules including the notice had been sent to the department on 14.9.1990, it is not possible to accept that the copy of the Gazette notification could have reached to all parties of Rajasthan on that day, the respondents have not shown that they had sent the copies of the Gazette notification to the various parts of Rajasthan and assured that the same reached at all places on that day. A perusal of annexure 4 shows that waters for fishing were to be auctioned for Sri Ganganagar and Bikaner, Jaipur, Sawaimadhopur, Tonk, Alwar, Ajmer, Sikar, Jhunjhunu, Chittorgarh including Rana Pratap Sagar Bharatpur, Dholpur, Nagaur, Udaipur, Bhilwara, Kota, Bundi, Jhalawar, Doongarpur, Banswara, Jalore, Sirohi, Barmer, Jodhpur, Pali and Jaisalmer. It is not possible to accept the copies of Gazette notification had reached all these places on 14.9.1990. Further it is also not possible to hold that 7 days time given for submission of objections was adequate, reasonable or in accordance with the just requirements of the statute. The time allowed was miserable short and did not afford any opportunity worth the name on the part of the persons concerned to make their objections to the draft amendment rules. The short time clearly defeated the object for which they were published and are required to be published by law. 18. The time allowed was miserable short and did not afford any opportunity worth the name on the part of the persons concerned to make their objections to the draft amendment rules. The short time clearly defeated the object for which they were published and are required to be published by law. 18. Alternatively, even if for the sake of arguments, it is assumed that 7 days time was adequate and reasonable and justified, in our opinion the respondents had proceeded to send the final rules for Gazette notification even before the expiry of 7 days. The notification bearing the date September 11, 1990 shows that the draft was to be taken into consideration on or after the expiry of 7 days from the date of its publication in the Rajasthan Raj Patra and objections or suggestions in respect of the said draft could be made within the above period. Section 10 of the Rajasthan General Clauses Act, 1955 clearly lays down that in any Rajasthan law it shall be sufficient for the purpose of excluding the first in a series of days or any other period of time to use the word from and, for the purpose of including the last in a series of days or any other period of time, to use the word to. Thus taking the 14.09.1990 to be the date, on which the draft rules were published, the same had to be excluded for accounting the period of seven days. The objections or suggestions in respect of the draft rules could thus be submitted up to September 21, 1990. The respondents were under an obligation to consider objections or suggestions submitted by the petitioner. This has admittedly not been done because as per the averments of the respondents, the final rules were sent for publication in the Rajasthan Gazette on 20.9.1990 itself and the Rajasthan Gazette Extra ordinary bearing the date September 20, 1990 shows that no objections/suggestions were received by the State Government within the specified period. A question relating to interpretation of Sec. 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which is para materia with Sec. 10 of the Rajasthan General Clauses Act, 1955 arose before this court in Onkar V Jagmohan Singh(8) and after placing reliance on the decision in Pooran Chand V Mohd. A question relating to interpretation of Sec. 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which is para materia with Sec. 10 of the Rajasthan General Clauses Act, 1955 arose before this court in Onkar V Jagmohan Singh(8) and after placing reliance on the decision in Pooran Chand V Mohd. Deen (9) and Badrinath V State of Pepsu (10), this court held that the days on which the notice of appeal was served had to be excluded for the purpose of calculating the period of one month, within which the cross-objections could be filed. In Pooran Chands case, which has been referred to in Onkar V Jagmohan Singh the Division Bench of the Lahore High Court held as under : "The General Clauses Act embodies a principle of equity which should be applied to decree apart from statutes and that at the date from which one reckons may be either inclusive or exclusive, the period to be reckoned should exclude the day mentioned." In Badrinaths case, which too has been replied upon in Onkar V Jagmohan Singh, the Court held that the day on which the order was made had to be excluded. 19. In our view, on the basis of plain reading of Sec. 10 of the Rajasthan General Clauses Act, 1955 and also in the light of the principles laid down in the authorities referred to hereinabove, it must be held that the respondents had proceeded to finalise the Rules on September 20, 1990 before the expiry of 7 days time specified in the Notification dated September 11, 1990 and the objections representations made by the petitioner or any other persons on 21.9.1990 have been erroneously excluded from consideration. 20. In the face of the aforesaid findings recorded by us, the question arises as to whether by virtue of Section 26 (5), the Court is bound to treat the amendment rules as having been duly made with their publication in the Rajasthan Gazette on September 20, 1990. 21. Shri Khan strenuously urged that no inquiry into the procedure followed in making of the Rules could be made by the Court after issuance of the Gazette Notification dated September 20, 1990. 21. Shri Khan strenuously urged that no inquiry into the procedure followed in making of the Rules could be made by the Court after issuance of the Gazette Notification dated September 20, 1990. On the other hand, Shri Agrawal submitted that there is no irrebuttable presumption that the Rules have been duly framed and once the court find that there has been non-compliance of the provision regarding previous, publication or that there is no application of mind to the objections/suggestions submitted by the persons affected, the court must declared that the rules have not been duly made. The power of judicial review vested in this court under our Constitution are indeed unquestionable. It is the bounden duty of the court to see that the rules made under a statute are lawfully made. They are made after compliance with the essential procedure laid down for their enactment. Where it is shown that the rules have been made in flagrant violation of the statutory provisions prescribed by law or in a manner clearly opposed to the fundamental principles of natural justice, the court would be failing in its duty, if such rules are not struck down. We must reject the arguments of the learned Additional Advocate General that the power of judicial review of this court is croded by enactment of rule of irrebuttable presumption or conclusiveness of proof. This court cannot be rendered powerless by a provision like Section 26(5), to strike down the rules where they have been made by the authority to whom the legislature has delegated such powers in violation of the statutory procedure or fundamental requirements of the principles of natural justice. This court cannot be rendered powerless by a provision like Section 26(5), to strike down the rules where they have been made by the authority to whom the legislature has delegated such powers in violation of the statutory procedure or fundamental requirements of the principles of natural justice. This court had examined similar arguments in Automobile Transports case (supra) and after discussing the various decisions on the point, the Division Bench concluded as under :- "The correct legal position, therefore, in our opinion, is that not with standing that the legislature may attribute finality to the decisions of subordinate courts or Tribunals, or what is analogous, invest the final publication of certain statutory rules in the official Gazette with the quality of conclusiveness of proof that the rules have been duly made in the sense already discussed, the jurisdiction of this court as a court of judicial review, and as possessed of extensive writ jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution cannot be taken away, and where a proper or grave case is satisfactorily established that a decision is manifestly contrary to law or has been made wholly of partly in excess of jurisdiction, or in flagrant disregard of judicial procedure, or the fundamental requirements of natural, or, again where certain statutory rules are made, (and they could have been made subject to previous publication only) the Government or by any other authority in the exercise of a delegated authority, but they have been made in manifest and substantial breach of the statutory essentials thereof, then the rule of finality attributed to such fiats by the legislature cannot be accepted as barring the exercise of the powers of this Court under the Constitution to see whether the rules were lawfully made or not; and, it would be its privilege, nay, bounden duty to go behind this facade of finality in either case and strike down the decision of the rules as the exigencies of the case may justly require. We hold accordingly." 22. In the case of Maula Bux V Appellate Tribunal (Supra) referred to by Shri Khan, the question which arose for consideration was, as to whether the Government was entitled to use a language different in the final rules than the one used in the draft. We hold accordingly." 22. In the case of Maula Bux V Appellate Tribunal (Supra) referred to by Shri Khan, the question which arose for consideration was, as to whether the Government was entitled to use a language different in the final rules than the one used in the draft. While examining the argument that the Government had no such authority, the court held "that the contentions if accepted, would made the powers of the Government for making change in the draft, depended on the receipt of the objections. There is no provision in Section 23 of the General Clauses Act limiting the powers of the rule making authority in this manner. The powers of the rule making authority under Sec. 68 of the Motor Vehicles Act are subject to the conditions of previous publication only and after the draft of rules is published as required by Section 23, it is open to the authority to make rules with or within changes in the previously published draft subject however, to the condition that the rules so made are not absolutely foreign to the draft. The Court held that the change in that case was necessarily with the draft and was not absolutely foreign to it. In that context, the court had relied on Section 23(5) of the General Clauses Act containing conclusive presumption that procedure for making such rules had been followed once the rules had been published in the official Gazette." 23. Maula Buxs case was referred to in Automobile Transports case (supra) and in the later case, the Division Bench clarified the position by making the following observations :- "It was held, and if we may say so, with respect, rightly that it was open to the Government to make rules with or without changes in the previously published subject to the condition that the rule so made was not really foreign to the draft. The court further held that the change was incident and therefore the objection that the constitution of the appellate Authority was illegal as the Transport Minister was apppoint its Chariman was without any substance. The court further held that the change was incident and therefore the objection that the constitution of the appellate Authority was illegal as the Transport Minister was apppoint its Chariman was without any substance. It was further laid down however after the above finding was given that under sub section (5) of Section 23 of the General Clauses Act, a conclusive presumption arose after the publication of the impugned rule in the official Gazette, that the procedure for making such rule had been followed, and that the petitioners were debarred from questioning the irregularities, if any, in the previous publication of the amendment. The case, to our mind, is entirely distinguishable on the facts from the case before us. The draft rules were published and ample time was given for the filing of the objections thereto. It was already mentioned that the Transport Minister who was to be one of the members of the Tribunal. The main point of controversy was whether the change made by the Government so as to make the Transport Minister Chairman of the Appellate Tribunal was or was not illegal as no mention of this was make in the draft rule. The bench held that the change was within the scope of the rule and could have been made. This case, with all respect, cannot be taken as authority for the broad position contended for by the State that the draft rules need not have been published for inviting objections at all, and that even though they were published and the notice under which they were published did not afford any reasonable or adequate opportunity to the persons concerned for filing their objections, still the rules must be accepted to have been duly made because they had been finally published in the official Gazette under Sec. 23(5) of the General Clauses Act and that therefore this court would be entirely powerless to question and strike down the rules in the exercise of its high writ jurisdiction even where the rules are proved to have been made in a manner which is wholly illusory and is in flagrant breach of the provisions of sec. 23 itself."