Judgment J.C. Verma, J.-All these writ petitions involve similar facts and law. The only point involved and as argued by the counsel for the petitioner is as to from which date the notification as published in the Government gazette in regard to Rajasthan Trade Articles (Licensing and Control) Order, 1980 (hereinafter called as the control order) is to be made effective. For the purpose of disposal of all these writ petitions, the facts are being taken from S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1264/ 97 Rae Barley Flour Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan. 2. Counselfor the petitioner submits that unless the notification is published in the gazette and also released for the information of the public no penal consequences can flow against the citizen out of the notification prior to the date of release of such published notification for information of the public. 3. The petitioners are the traders engaged in the business of purchase and sale, storage for sale of wheat and its products, it is stated that in the month of Sept 1996 or thereafter, no license was required to be obtained for trading for wheat and wheat products under the Control Order. Wheat was not included in Part A of Schedule I appended to the control order, 1980 and as such no license was required to be obtained and, therefore, he had not applied for obtaining any such license even though after the publication of the notification, license had been obtained for selling or storing of wheat, rice and pulses, which license is valid upto 3 1-3-2016. The license was obtained in the month of Dec. 1996. Clause 26 of the control order authorises the State Government to add or omit from the Schedule any trade article by issuing notification in the official gazette. Dealer has also been defined under Clause 2(E), the control order of 1980 has been made by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. The expression notified order has been defined under Section 2(c) of the Essential Commodities Act to be the order notified in the official gazette. 4. Clause 26 of the Control Order. 1980 provides that the State Government by an order notified in the official gazette may add to or omit from the schedules, any trade article and thereupon, the schedule shall be deemed to have been amended accordingly. 4. Clause 26 of the Control Order. 1980 provides that the State Government by an order notified in the official gazette may add to or omit from the schedules, any trade article and thereupon, the schedule shall be deemed to have been amended accordingly. The Wheat. Barley, Bajra, Jowar etc. were the articles which were sometime added in the schedule and sometime deleted. These articles were deleted vide notification order dated 10-3-1995, however, the State Government again issued a notification dated 14-12-1996 whereby it had amended Part A of Schedule I by adding to the list ‘wheat’ as one of the food grains as per notification issued vide Annexure 2. Clause 26 of the Control Order reads as under ‘Clause 26: Power to amend Schedule. The State Government may, by an order notified in the Official Gazette add to or omit from the Schedules, any trade article and thereupon the schedule shall be deemed to have been amended accordingly.” 5. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that ever since they came to know about the notification Annexure 2, they took all steps to procure the license. License was granted immediately. However, this notification Annexure 2 was not published in the official gazette and released till 13-2-1997 nor any steps were taken by the Food and Supply Department to get the said notification published released before that date. It is the submission of the petitioners that the notification dated 14-12-1996 was published in the Rajasthan Gazette (Extraordinary) on 13-2-1997. Photostat copy of the Gazette notification is attached as Annexure 3. 6. Some time in the month of January 1997 the District Supply Officer. Tonk had visited the establishment and had seized certain papers and prepared a seizure memo and proceedings were initiated against the petitioners for initiating action. Licenses of the petitioners were also suspended for 90 days vide certain correspondence as has been attached as Annexures with the writ petitions. Show cause notice was issued to the petitioners vide Annexure 9. Appeal was filed against the order of suspension along with an application for stay. The stay was refused. 7. Licenses of the petitioners were also suspended for 90 days vide certain correspondence as has been attached as Annexures with the writ petitions. Show cause notice was issued to the petitioners vide Annexure 9. Appeal was filed against the order of suspension along with an application for stay. The stay was refused. 7. It is the submission of the counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 14-12-1996 whereby Part A of Schedule I appended to the Control Order, 1980 had been amended was not notified in the Official Gazette till 13-2-1997 and as such the entire proceedings initiated by the District Supply Officer under the said notification were without jurisdiction. Prayer has been made in the writ petitions for quashing the notification and also to quash the proceedings initiated by the respondents against the petitioners for non-compliance of the notification dated 14-12-1997 or any action said to have been committed before the publication of the notification i.e. before 13-2-1997 and to declare the action of the respondent in seizing the record to be illegal. 8. Reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It is not disputed that the notification dated 14-12-1996 was actually sent for publication to the State Government press and it was actually published on 19-12-1997. Even though in the written statement, it is stated that the notification was published on 19-12-1996, but in the affidavit filed by the State in Civil Writ Petition No. 1841/97 an averment has been made to the effect that the notification, though actually published on 19-12-1997 was not released till 13-2-1997 from the press because of unavoidable circumstances as the Press was busy in printing Election matter. 9. Counselfor the petitioners relied on a D.B. decision of this Court in the case of Rajasthan Matsya Vyavasayee Sangh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1991 Raj 72 , wherein it was held that mere sending a notice for publication or mere printing thereof , cannot be treated as publication of the Gazette notification. It was further held that even sending of a printed notification to the departmental authorities cannot be equated with publication of the same. It was further held that even sending of a printed notification to the departmental authorities cannot be equated with publication of the same. It was further held that 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. In the said case, the draft rules proposing the amendment in the Rajasthan Fisheries Rules, 1958 had been sent to the Government 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. It was held that it was a case of ante dating the date of actual printing. It was further held that it is only when the draft rules are made available to the public, and till then the same could not be said to have been published. 10. To similar effect is the Judgment of Kerala Full Court in R.K. V. Motors & Tim bers (P) Ltd. v. Regional Transport Officer, AIR 1982 Ker 156 . It was held therein that even though the Gazette was published on 29-9-1975 but it was actually released on 14-10-1975. It was held that the gazette would come into effect on the date when it was released and not from the date when it was actually printed. Similar was the effect of the Interpretation of Calcutta High Court in Mahomed Sayeed v. Union of India, AIR 1990 Cal 52 . 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in I.T.C. Bhadrachalam Paper Boards v. Mandal Revenue Officer, A.P., (1996) 6 SCC 634 had held that the statutory requirement of publication or rule/order in Official Gazette is mandatory. It was held that it is the official version of the rule/order which could be relied upon by the Courts. Dissemination by newspapers or mass media was held not to ‘be the substitute to the actual publication and releasing. 12. Mr. It was held that it is the official version of the rule/order which could be relied upon by the Courts. Dissemination by newspapers or mass media was held not to ‘be the substitute to the actual publication and releasing. 12. Mr. K.S. Rathore, Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents, fairly accedes that until and unless the notification is published in the Official Gazette and also released to the public, it cannot take effect in view of law as laid down. In the present case, it is submitted that the Gazette was released only on 13-2-1997 for the information of the public and thus, any penal consequences for which the petitioners are being proceeded with before publication and also the release of the relevant notification, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and the impugned action of the respondents is, therefore, not sustainable. 13. For the reasons mentioned above, all the three writ petitions are partly allowed and any proceedings including the seizure or show cause notice of suspension, now pending or culminated which had been initiated before 13-2-1997 in regard to the above said incidents are quashed. The impugned orders in all the writ petitions are also quashed. No order as to costs.