ORDER S.P. Khare, J. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 11-6-1993 (Annexure P-8) of the Board of Revenue. In proceedings u/s 170B of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Code) the Sub-Divisional Officer, Mahasamund held by his order dated 13-11-1990 (Annexure P-5) that the registered sale-deed dated 10-12-1971 executed by Shivram, Saheblal and Chotelal in favour of Bansilal and Artidas in respect of Khasra Nos. 1126/1, 1083/1 and 1072/1 total area 7.44 acres of village Bindola, Tehsil Mahasamund was void as the permission of the Collector as required by section 165(6) of the Code was not obtained. The proceeding was initiated by the petitioners who are daughters of Niramlal, brother of the three vendors. They belong to Kamvar tribe which is admittedly an aboriginal tribe as per notification issued u/s 165(6) of the Code. Respondent No. 1 Bansidas and his brother Artidas belonged to Panika tribe which was also an aboriginal tribe as per item No. 39 of the said notification. That has been omitted by notification dated 8-12-1971 published in the official gazette on 17-12-1971. The result is that Panika is no longer an aboriginal tribe for Raipur district including Tehsil Mahasamund. As mentioned above the sale- deed has been executed on 10-12-1971. Therefore, the question arose whether on the date of the execution of the sale-deed the amended notification by which Panika was deleted from the list of aboriginal tribes had come into force or not. The permission of the Collector u/s 165(6) of the Code for sale of the land is required if the sale is to be made by a member of the aboriginal tribe to a non-aboriginal person and it is not required if it is by one tribe to another tribe. The Sub-Divisional Officer held that the vendees were non-aboriginal on the date of sale. In appeal the Collector by his order dated 1-4-1991 (Annexure P-6) remanded the case to the S.D.O. for re-determining the question whether the vendees belonged to aboriginal tribe on the date of sale. The Sub-Divisional Officer held that the vendees were non-aboriginal on the date of sale. In appeal the Collector by his order dated 1-4-1991 (Annexure P-6) remanded the case to the S.D.O. for re-determining the question whether the vendees belonged to aboriginal tribe on the date of sale. In revision the Commissioner by his order dated 29-4-1992 (Annexure P-7) held that the notification dated 8-12-1971 became effective from that very date though it was published in the gazette on 17-12-1971 and the vendees being of non-aboriginal tribe on the date of sale the permission of the Collector as per section 165(6) of the Code was required and in the absence of that permission the sale was void. The Board of Revenue by the impugned order dated 11-6-1993 (Annexure P-8) held that the notification came into force on 17-12-1971 when it was published and not from 8-12-1971 when it was issued and therefore set aside all the three orders. The point for determination in this petition is whether the notification dated 8-12-1971 became effective when it was issued or on 17-12-1971 when it was published in the gazette. The learned counsel for both the sides were heard on this point. Section 165(6) of the Code as it stood in the year 1971 provided that notwithstanding anything in sub-section (1), the right of a Bhumiswami belonging to a tribe which has been declared to be an aboriginal tribe by the State Government by a 'notification' in that behalf for the whole or a part of the area to which this Code applies shall not be transferred to a person not belonging to such tribe without the permission of a revenue officer not below the rank of a Collector given for reasons to be recorded in writing. As per section 2(25) of the M.P. General Clauses Act, 1957, 'notification' means a notification published in the gazette. In this case the notification in question though issued on 8-12-1971 was published in the gazette on 17-12-1971. Therefore, the notification will be deemed to have come into force on the date. it was published in the gazette. Such a notification by which a particular tribe is to be declared as aboriginal tribe or a subsequent deletion of a tribe from the original notification is a form of delegated legislation. Therefore, the notification will be deemed to have come into force on the date. it was published in the gazette. Such a notification by which a particular tribe is to be declared as aboriginal tribe or a subsequent deletion of a tribe from the original notification is a form of delegated legislation. Such a delegated legislation by a notification in the gazette takes effect when it is made known to the public. It is on publication of such a notification that public can have access to it and know about it. The leading case on the point is Johnson vs. Sargant and Sons, (1918) 1 KB 101 in which it was laid down that an order made by the Food Controller did not take effect until it was published. It was held that order could come into operation only on the date it was made known. In Blackpool Corporation vs. Locker, (1948) 1 All.E.R. 85 Scott L.J. observed as under:-- "The maxim that ignorance of law does not excuse any subject represents the working hypothesis on which the rule of law rests in British democracy -- but the very justification for that basic maxim is that the whole of our law, written or unwritten, is accessible to the public - in the sense, of course, that, at any rate, its legal Advisers have access to it, at any moment, as of right." The principle laid down in Johnson vs. Sargant was approved by the Supreme Court in Harla Vs. The State of Rajasthan, . Bose, J. said, "natural justice requires that before a law can become operative, it must be promulgated or published". It was further observed as under:-- "The thought that a decision reached in the secret recesses of a chamber to which the public have no access and to which even their accredited representatives have no access and of which they can normally know nothing, can nevertheless affect their lives, liberty and property by the mere passing of a resolution without anything more is abhorrent to civilised man. It shocks his conscience. Promulgation or publication of some reasonable sort is essential." In State of Maharashtra Vs. Hans George, , a notification dated 8-11-1962 was published in gazette on 24-11-1962. It shocks his conscience. Promulgation or publication of some reasonable sort is essential." In State of Maharashtra Vs. Hans George, , a notification dated 8-11-1962 was published in gazette on 24-11-1962. It was held by the Supreme Court that publication in the official gazette is the ordinary method of bringing a rule or subordinate legislation to the notice of the persons concerned. The notification must be deemed to have been brought to the notice of the concerned individuals on the date it was published in the official gazette. The proposition which has been laid down in this case is that delegated legislation does not take effect when made but only takes effect when 'made known'. In B.K. Srinivasan and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, , the principle which has been laid down is that whether law is viewed from the standpoint of the 'conscientious good man' seeking to abide by the law or from the standpoint of Justice Holmes's 'Unconscientious bad man' seeking to avoid the law, law must be known, that is to say, it must be so made that it can be known. We know that delegated or subordinate legislation is all pervasive and that there is hardly any field of activity where governance by delegated or subordinate legislative powers is not as important if not more important, than governance by Parliamentary legislation. But unlike Parliamentary legislation which is publicly made, delegated or subordinate legislation is often made unobtrusively in the chambers of a Minister, a Secretary to the Government or other official dignitary. It is, therefore, necessary that subordinate legislation, in order to take effect, must be published or promulgated in some suitable manner, whether such publication or promulgation is prescribed by the parent statute are not. It will then take effect from the date of such publication or promulgation. Again in I.T.C. Bhadrachalam Paperboards and Another Vs. Mandal Revenue Officer, A.P. and Others, it has been reiterated that if a question arises when was a particular order or rule made, it is the date of Gazette publication that is relevant. It was further observed that requirement of publication in the Gazette is an imperative requirement and it cannot be dispensed with. The object of publication in an official Gazette is two-fold:-- to give publicity to the notification and to provide authenticity to the contents of that notification. It was further observed that requirement of publication in the Gazette is an imperative requirement and it cannot be dispensed with. The object of publication in an official Gazette is two-fold:-- to give publicity to the notification and to provide authenticity to the contents of that notification. The same principle has been further confirmed in Collector of Central Excise Vs. New Tobacco Co. Etc. Etc., . The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon Shrikrishna vs. State of M.P., 1975 MPLJ 318 in which a Special Judge was appointed by notification dated 7-5-1966. He proceeded with the trial of the case on 26-5-1966 and till that date the notification dated 7-5-1966 was not published in the official gazette. But no objection was taken by the accused persons before the Judge that he had no jurisdiction to try the case. This notification was communicated to him before he commenced the trial. On these facts it was held that the publication of the notification in the official gazette was only a ministerial act. The notification appointing a judge as a special judge is an administrative act. It is not a delegated legislation in the sense of making a law. That case is distinguishable. In light of the principles laid down in the cases cited above it must be held in the present case that the notification dated 8-10-1971 came into force on 17-10-1971 when it was published in the official gazette. On 10-10-1971 the vendees were in the category of notified aboriginal tribe and therefore for sale in their favour no permission of the Collector as per Section 165(6) of the Code was required. The sale is valid and the proceedings u/s 170B of the Code were without jurisdiction. The view taken by the Board of Revenue is correct. The petition is dismissed.