Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 925 (MP)

Pranay Gupta v. State of M. P.

2004-11-19

R.V.RAVEENDRAN, SHANTANU KEMKAR

body2004
ORDER Raveendran, C.J. -- 1. The Collectors of 48 districts in the State . of Madhya Pradesh issued notifications dated 3.7.2004 under section 125 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 ('the Act', for short) proposing to (a) change the headquarters of Gram Panchayats; (b) alter the limits of Gram Panchayat area; (c) amalgamate two or more Gram Panchayat areas and form one Gram Panchayat area in their place; and (d) split a Gram Panchayat area and form two or more Gram Panchayats in its place, in their respective districts and inviting objections and suggestions in regard to the said proposals. The notifications stated that objections/suggestions received by 8.7.2004 in response to the notifications will be considered by the authorised authority on 9.7.2004. The said notifications dated 3.7.2004 were published in the M.P. State Gazette dated 9.7.2004. The said proposal notifications were followed by final notifications dated 12.7.2004 issued under section 125(1) of the Act (gazetted on 16.7.2004) in regard to each district, effecting change of headquarters and amalgamating/altering of Panchayat areas. 2. The petitioner contends that the proposal notification dated 3.7.2004 fixing the last date for filing objections/suggestions as 8.7.2004, published in the State Gazette on 9.7.2004 is void ab initio being violative of the mandatory requirements of section 125 of the Act and rule 3 of the M.P. Panchayat (Alteration of Limits, Disestablishment or Change of Headquarters) Rules, 1994 ('Alteration Rules', for short). The petitioner, a practising Advocate of Jabalpur therefore filed this Public Interest Petition on 26.8.2004 seeking a direction to the State of M.P. and 48 District Collectors (respondents 3 to 30) to reinitiate the process of inviting objections/suggestions from public in regard to change of headquarters, amalgamation/alteration of Panchayat areas by issuing fresh notifications granting reasonable time to the public for preparation and filing of their objections/suggestions before the prescribed authority. Subsequently, he added a prayer for quashing notification dated 3.7.2004 (gazetted on 9.7.2004) proposing delimitation/amalgamation and the final notification dated 12.7.2004 (gazetted on 16.7.2004) declaring the delimitation/amalgamation. The petitioner has produced the copy of only one of the proposal notification dated 3.7.2004 (relating to District Harda) and stated that similar notifications have been issued in regard to the other districts. 3. The petitioner has produced the copy of only one of the proposal notification dated 3.7.2004 (relating to District Harda) and stated that similar notifications have been issued in regard to the other districts. 3. The respondents have filed a return wherein they admitted that the notifications dated 3.7.2004 inviting objections/suggestions to the proposals by 8.7.2004, were all published in the State Gazette only on 9.7.2004. The learned Advocate General fairly conceded that though the Department had sent the notifications dated 3.7.2004 to the Government Printing Press on 3.7.2004, the Government Printing Press printed and published the notifications in the Gazette only on 9.7.2004. 4. When the statute provides that the proposals should be published in the Gazette inviting suggestions and objections, it follows that the publication of the proposal notification in the M.P. Gazette should be a publication, which effectively invites suggestions/objections, and which enables the affected persons to make suggestions/objections, so that they can be considered by the Authority who makes the proposals. If, for example, a notification is published in the Gazette stating that the Authorised Authority proposes to change the headquarters of a Gram Panchayat, but does not invite suggestions and objections and does not specify any time limit within which the objections/suggestions can be made, and thereafter proceeds to issue a notification changing the headquarters, such proposal notification will not be in compliance with the Proviso to sub-section (1) of section 125 of the .Act. Similarly, if a notification is printed and published on a particular date, proposing to change the headquarters of a Gram Panchayat, and stating that objections/suggestions may be made by a date specified, which is prior to the date of such publication, it will not' a valid publication at all. The proposal notification inviting suggestions and objections for consideration, to be a valid one, shall have to fulfill with the following requirements: (a) It should contain the proposals in clear terms. (b) It should invite objections/suggestions from the affected persons. (c) It should fix or specify the last date before which the objections or suggestions shall be filed. Alternatively, it shall state that objections or suggestions received beyond the specific date will not be considered. (d) It should specify the authority before whom the objections are to be filed for consideration. (b) It should invite objections/suggestions from the affected persons. (c) It should fix or specify the last date before which the objections or suggestions shall be filed. Alternatively, it shall state that objections or suggestions received beyond the specific date will not be considered. (d) It should specify the authority before whom the objections are to be filed for consideration. (e) It should be published and made available to the public well before the last date specified for filing objections/suggestions, to enable the affected persons to file their suggestions/objections. In Collector of Central Excise v. New Tobacco Co., AIR 1998 SC 668 , the Supreme Court held that a Notification can be said to have been published, except when it is provided otherwise, when it is so issued as to make it known to the public. It would be a proper publication if it is published in such a manner that persons can, if they are so interested, acquaint themselves with its contents. If publication is through a Gazette, then mere printing of it in the Gazette would not be enough. Unless the Gazette containing the Notification is made available to the public, the notification cannot be said to have been duly published. 4.1. The notifications dated 3.7.2004 did not fulfill the said requirements. The notifications dated 3.7.2004 are published in the Gazette dated 9.7.2004 but provide that the objections/suggestions should be filed by 8.7.2004, which is an impossibility. Whether such Gazette dated 9.7.2004 was made available to the public on 9.7.2004 or whether it was made available on a much later date is also a relevant question, but that need not be gone into, as even on the admitted facts, it is clear that it was impossible for anyone who read the proposal notification of 3.7.2004 published in the Gazette dated 9.7.2004, to file objections or suggestions to the proposals contained therein by 8.7.2004. Therefore, publication of such a notification in the Gazette is not a valid publication. 5. Therefore, publication of such a notification in the Gazette is not a valid publication. 5. The respondents, however, contend that even if the proposal notifications dated 3.7.2004 are defective, the reliefs sought in the petition should not be granted for the following reasons : (a) The petitioner, a practising Advocate of Jabalpur, not being a resident of any of the villages, which are the subject matter of the proposals for change, contained in the notifications dated 3.7.2004, has no locus standi to file the writ petition. . (b) None of the residents of any of the villages/areas which are the subject-matter of the proposals in the notifications dated 3.7.2004 has filed any petition challenging the said notifications dated 3.7.2004 (published on 9.7.2004) on the ground that they could not file objections/suggestions by 8.7.2004, for want of notice of the proposals contained in the such notification. (c) The writ petition, filed in the last week of August, 2004, long after the publication of the final notification dated 12.7.2004 (Gazetted on 16.7.2004), is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. (d) The notifications dated 3.7.2004 were affixed on the notice-boards of the concerned Gram Panchayats and at one or two conspicuous places in the affected areas, as required by Rule 3 of the Alteration Rules. The resident of the affected villages had thus clear notice of the proposals. Publication of the notification by affixture on the Notice Boards of the Gram Panchayat and other conspicuous places in the affected areas, is a more effective way of notifying the affected persons (resident of the villages) than publication in the Gazette, which is merely a statutory formality. (e) Several objections/suggestions received up to 8.7.2004 in response to the notifications (affixed to the Notice Boards of Gram Panchayat Offices and other conspicuous places in the affected area) were considered by the respective District Collectors before issuing the final notifications dated 12.7.2004 under section 125(1) of the Act. (f) Thus, there was substantial compliance with the requirement of 'Publication of Proposals' under proviso to section 125(1) read with Rule 3. There was also proper consideration of the objections/suggestions by the District Collectors before issue of final notifications dated 12.7.2004 under section 125(1). (f) Thus, there was substantial compliance with the requirement of 'Publication of Proposals' under proviso to section 125(1) read with Rule 3. There was also proper consideration of the objections/suggestions by the District Collectors before issue of final notifications dated 12.7.2004 under section 125(1). (g) After the delimitation of constituencies were effected under the respective District-wise notifications dated 12.7.2004 (gazetted on 16.7.2004) issued under section 125 of the Act, the process of reservation of wards for candidates belonging to SC/ST/OBC/Women was completed. The State Election Commission has also completed the process of preparation of voters-lists revision of electoral rolls by 28.10.2004. Though the calendar for the elections is not yet declared, the process of election is deemed to have commenced with the publication of voters list and any interference at this stage on the ground that the process of delimitation was defective, would amount to upsetting the process of election. (h) The entire process has involved an expenditure of around Rs. 20 crores and if it is to be repeated it will delay the Panchayat elections considerably apart from causing loss of the said expenditure of Rs. 20 crores. 6. In view of the above contentions, the following questions arise for consideration : (i) Whether the requirement relating to publication of the proposals for change of headquarters/amalgamation and alteration of Panchayat areas under the proviso to section 125(1) of the Act, is mandatory or directory. (ii) Whether the mode of publication prescribed under rule 3 of the Alteration Rules is mandatory or directory. (iii) What is the effect of defective publication of the proposal notification dated 3.7.2004 in the Gazette, on the subsequent finalisation of the proposals, if there is, however, proper publication by affixture on the Notice Boards of the Gram Panchayats and at the conspicuous places in affected area. 7. Section 125 of the Act relates to changes of headquarters of Gram Panchayats, amalgamation and alteration of Gram Panchayat areas. 7. Section 125 of the Act relates to changes of headquarters of Gram Panchayats, amalgamation and alteration of Gram Panchayat areas. Sub-section (1) thereof, which is relevant is extracted below: "(1) The Governor or the authority authorised by him may by order change the headquarters of a Gram Panchayat or alter, the limits of a Gram Panchayat area by including within it any local area in vicinity thereof or by excluding there from any local area comprised therein or amalgamate two or more Gram Panchayat areas and form one Gram Panchayat area in their place or split up a Gram Panchayat , area and form two or more Gram Panchayat areas in its place. Provided that no order under this section shall be made unless a proposal in this behalf is published for inviting suggestions and objections in such manner as may be prescribed and objections are considered." (emphasis supplied) Rule 3 of the Alteration Rules, which prescribes the mode of publication of the proposals, is extracted below : ''3. Change of headquarters of Gram Panchayat, division, amalgamation or alteration of Gram Panchayat area -- (1) Where the Governor or the authority authorized by him decides under sub-section (1) of section 125 : (i) to change the headquarters of a Gram Panchayat; or (ii) to alter the limits of a Gram Panchayat area by including within it any local area in the vicinity thereof or by excluding therefrom any local area comprised therein; or (iii) to amalgamate two or more Gram Panchayat area and form one Gram Panchayat area in their place; or. (iv) to split up a Gram Panchayat area and form two or more Gram Panchayat areas in its place, he/it shall declare his/its intention in the form of a proposal to do so by publishing a notification in the "Madhya Pradesh Gazette" and by affixing a copy of such notification on the notice board of the Gram Panchayat's concerned and on one or two conspicuous' places in the area affected by such intention. (2) Every such notification shall specify -- (i) in case of clause (i) of sub-rule (1), the existing headquarters of a Gram Panchayat and proposed headquarters; (ii) in case of clause (ii) of sub-rule (1), the Khasra numbers of the area proposed to be included in a Gram Panchayat or proposed to be excluded therefrom; (iii) in case of clause (iii) of sub-rule (1), the Gram Panchayats proposed to be amalgamated; and (iv) in case of clause (iv) of sub-rule (1), the particulars of each of the area proposed to be spilt up. (3) Every such notification shall invite suggestion and objections by the date to be mentioned therein and any objection or suggestion received from any person with respect to the proposal before the expiry of the date specified above shall be considered by the Governor or the authority authorized by him, as the case may be." (emphasis supplied) By notification dated 23.2.1999, the Governor of Madhya Pradesh has authorised the Collectors of the concerned revenue districts, to function as the Authority for purposes of section 125 of the Act. 8. The Proviso to sub-section (1) of section 125 of the Act provides that no order under section 125(1) 'shall' be made unless a proposal in that behalf is published inviting objections/suggestions in such manner as may be prescribed and the objections/suggestions are considered. Rule 3 provides that where the Governor or authority authorised by him decides to take any action under section 125(1), he 'shall' declare his intention in the form of a proposal to do so, by publishing a notification in the M.P. Gazette and by affixing a copy of such notification on the Notice boards of the Gram Panchayats concerned and on one or two places in the area affected by such intention. The question is whether the use of the word 'shall' in the Proviso to section 125(1) and in Rule 3 is mandatory or directory. 9. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Baburam Upadhyay [ AIR 1961 SC 751 ], a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court referred to the law on the subject and laid down the principles as to when a requirement of a statute is mandatory or directory. The following is the relevant extract : ".... 9. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Baburam Upadhyay [ AIR 1961 SC 751 ], a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court referred to the law on the subject and laid down the principles as to when a requirement of a statute is mandatory or directory. The following is the relevant extract : ".... The word "shall'; in its ordinary import is "obligatory", but there are many decisions wherein the Courts under different situations construed the word to mean "may". This Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad lshaque [ AIR 1955 SC 233 ] dealt with this problem thus : 'It is well established that an enactment in form mandatory might in substance be directory and that the use of the word "shall" does not conclude the matter.' The following quotation from Crawford "On the Construction of Statutes", at p. 516, is also helpful in this connection : 'The question as to whether a statute is mandatory or directory depends upon the intent of the legislature and not upon the language in which the intent is clothed. The .meaning and intention of the legislature must govern, and these are to be ascertained, not only from the phraseology of the provision, but also by considering its nature, its design, and the consequences which would follow from construing it the one way or the other ...' This passage was approved by this Court in State of U.P. v. Manbodhan Lal [ AIR 1957 SC 912 ]. In Craies on Statue Law, 5th edition, the following passage appears at p. 242 : No universal rule can be laid down as to whether mandatory enactments shall be considered directory only or obligatory with an implied nullification for disobedience. It is the duty of Courts of Justice to try to get the real intention of the Legislature by carefully attending to the whole scope of the statute to be construed. The relevant rules of interpretation may be briefly stated thus: When a statute uses the word "shall", prima facie, it is mandatory, but the Court may ascertain the real intention of the legislature by carefully attending to the whole scope of the statute. The relevant rules of interpretation may be briefly stated thus: When a statute uses the word "shall", prima facie, it is mandatory, but the Court may ascertain the real intention of the legislature by carefully attending to the whole scope of the statute. For ascertaining the real intention of the Legislature the Court may consider, inter alia, the nature and design of the statute and the consequences which would follow from construing it the one way or the other, the impact of other provisions whereby the necessity of complying with the provisions in question is avoided, the circumstance, namely, that the statute provides for a contingency of the non-compliance with 'the provisions, the fact, that the non-compliance with the provision is or is not visited by some penalty, the serious or trivial consequences that .flow therefrom, and, above all, whether the object of the legislation will be defeated or furthered." (emphasis supplied) 10. The question again came up for consideration before another Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Raza Buland. Sugar Co. Ltd., Rampur v. The Municipal Board, Rampur [AIR] 965 SC 895]. The Supreme Court stated the general principle thus : "The question whether a particular provision of a statute which on the face of it appears mandatory -- inasmuch as it uses the word "shall" as in the present case -- or is merely directory cannot be resolved by laying down any general rule and depends upon the facts of each case and for that purpose, the object of the statute in making the provision is the determining factor. The purpose for which the provision has been made and its nature, the intention of the legislature in making the provision, the serious general inconvenience or injustice to persons resulting from whether the provision is read one way or the other, the relation of the particular provision to other provisions dealing with the same subject and other considerations which may arise on the facts of a particular case including the language of the provision, have all to be taken into account in arriving at the conclusion whether a particular provision is mandatory or directory." (emphasis supplied) Then, it proceeded to examine the matter with reference to section 131 of U.P. Municipalities Act (Act 2 of 1916). Section 131(1) of the U.P. Municipalities Act provided that when a Board desires to impose a tax it shall by a special resolution frame proposals specifying the tax, the persons or class of persons to be made liable and other particulars required by the rules. Section 131(2) required the Board to prepare a draft of the rules in respect of the tax for assessment, collection and other matters relating to tax. Section 131 (3), which was under consideration required that the Board shall publish in the manner prescribed in section 94, the proposals framed under sub-section (1) and the Draft Rules framed under sub-section (2) along with a notice in the form set forth in Schedule III. Section 94(3) provided that every resolution passed by a Board at a matter shall, as soon thereafter as may be, be published in a local paper published in Hindi and where there is no such local paper, in the manner as the State Government may, by general or special order, direct. The Supreme Court therefore considered whether the requirements of section 131(3) was mandatory or directory, in two parts: (i) as to the requirement of publication of the proposals, and (ii) as to the manner of publication of the proposals. The Supreme Court held that the requirement of section 131(3) relating to publication of the proposals was mandatory, but the manner of publication provided in section 131(3) was directory; and that, therefore, if there was substantial compliance of the manner of publication provided in section 94(3), that would serve the purpose of section 131(3) which requires publication. The Supreme Court found in that case that the publication had been made in a local Urdu newspaper as there was no regular publication of any local Hindi newspaper. It held that the requirement relating to publication in Hindi newspaper was directory and that there was substantial compliance by publication in the Urdu Newspaper. As a result, it held that the mandatory requirement relating to 'publication' was complied with by substantial compliance with the mode of publication prescribed. We extract below the reasoning given by the Supreme Court to hold that the requirement relating to publication of proposals is mandatory. As a result, it held that the mandatory requirement relating to 'publication' was complied with by substantial compliance with the mode of publication prescribed. We extract below the reasoning given by the Supreme Court to hold that the requirement relating to publication of proposals is mandatory. "This brings us to the examination of the facts and circumstances of the present statute in the light of what we have said above as to the criteria for determining whether a provision in a statute is mandatory or directory. The provision with which we are concerned, namely, section 131(3), can be divided into two parts. The first part lays down that the Board shall publish proposals and draft rules along with a notice inviting objections to the proposals or the draft rules so published within a fortnight from the publication of the notice. The second part provides for the manner of publication and that manner is according to section 94(3). We shall first deal with what we have called the first part of section 131 (3). This provision deals with taxation. The object of providing for publication of proposals and draft rules is to invite objections from the inhabitants of the municipality, who have to pay the tax. The purpose of such publication obviously is to further the democratic process and to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to those who are Likely to be affected by the tax before imposing it on them. It is true that finally it is the Board itself which settles the proposals with respect to taxation and submits them to Government or the prescribed authority, as the case may the, for approval. Even so we have no doubt that the object behind this publication is to find out the reaction of tax-payers generally to the taxation proposals, and it may very well be in a particular case that the Board may drop the proposals altogether and may not proceed further with them, if the reaction of the tax-payers in general is of disapprobation. Further the purpose served by the publication of the proposals being to invite objections, in particular from the tax payers to the tax proposed to be levied on them, the legislature in its wisdom thought that compliance with this part of section 131(3) would essentially Carry out that purpose. Further the purpose served by the publication of the proposals being to invite objections, in particular from the tax payers to the tax proposed to be levied on them, the legislature in its wisdom thought that compliance with this part of section 131(3) would essentially Carry out that purpose. In the circumstances, if we are to hold that this part of section 131 (3) was merely directory, the whole purpose of the very elaborate procedure provided in sections 131 to 135 for .the imposition of tax would become meaningless, for the main basis of that procedure is the consideration of objections of tax-payers on the proposals of the Board. If such publication is merely directory, the Board can proceed to levy the tax without complying with them and that would make the entire elaborate procedure provided in the Act before a tax is imposed, nugatory. We are, therefore, of the opinion that this part of section 131(3) is mandatory and it is necessary to comply with it strictly before any tax can be imposed." (emphasis supplied) 11. A similar view was taken in Rai Vimal Krishna v. State of Bihar [ (2003) 6 SCC 401 ]. "In that case, the provisions of Patna Municipal, Corporation Act, 1951 relating to property tax were considered. Section 133 of that Act provided for preparation of valuation list and section 137 provided for preparation of assessment list. Section 149 related to publication of notice of assessment. It provided that the Chief Executive Officer shall sign the assessment list, which has been prepared and revised, and shall give public notice, by beat of drum and by placards posted in conspicuous places throughout Patna, or when any part of Patna has been assessed, then in that part of Patna, where the list may be inspected". In that case, the publication was done in newspapers and not by beat of drums or by placards posted in conspicuous places. Considering whether the mode of publication prescribed was mandatory provision, the Supreme Court held thus: "The third submission of the appellants relates to the mode of publication of the assessment lists. That the mode of publication, is a procedural provision is self-evident. But is it a mandatory provision ? The High Court's finding as to the nature of the provision for publication under sub-section (1) of section (49 is somewhat contradictory. That the mode of publication, is a procedural provision is self-evident. But is it a mandatory provision ? The High Court's finding as to the nature of the provision for publication under sub-section (1) of section (49 is somewhat contradictory. While holding that the manner of publication was mandatory and had to be complied with in terms thereof, in a subsequent portion of the judgment, it was held that it was a mere irregularity which could be waived. As we read sub-section (1) of section 149, the Chief Executive Officer is bound to give public notice of the assessment list. The word "shall" makes that clear. however, the word "shall" does not qualify the next phrase which is separated from the words "public notice" by a comma. The phrase separated is "by beat of drum and by placards posted in conspicuous places throughout Patna ......" Generally speaking, the object of giving a notice is to draw the attention of the persons sought to be affected to the matter notified. The purpose of specifying a particular mode of giving notice is to raise as legal presumption against such person, of knowledge of the subject of the notice. In other words, once the mode specified for giving notice is complied with, the onus is on the persons notified to prove that they were not aware of the subject-matter of the notice. There is otherwise no special sanctity given to the mode of service of notice. The appellants have contended that even though the owners were served with individual notices under section 149(2), unless publication was made in the matter provided in section 149(1) the occupants who were liable to pay water tax and latrine tax would be seriously affected and would not have an opportunity of challenging the imposition of the tax on them. Nobody disputes that publication and giving of notice to persons likely to be affected by the assessment lists is a must. The appellants have admitted publication of the assessment lists in three newspapers. It is not their case that such publication did not serve the purpose of notifying those who might be affected by the assessment lists, of their existence. Indeed it appears to us that the requirement to notify people by beat of drum is an anachronism which appears to be inappropriate in the present day and age in a large city like Patna. Indeed it appears to us that the requirement to notify people by beat of drum is an anachronism which appears to be inappropriate in the present day and age in a large city like Patna. The High Court's apprehension that: 'holding this provision as directory is likely to cause confusion' and mischief in future and it is not for this Court to substitute the wisdom of the legislature with its own by holding that notice by newspaper will be sufficient in place of the spot by beat of drum and placards' is unfounded both in law and in fact. It is an elementary principle of interpretation that words in statutory provisions take their colour from their context and object, keeping pace with the time when the word is being construed. When or where no other means of effective publication is available, no doubt, announcing the assessment list by beat of drum and by displaying placards would have to be complied with. Where equally efficacious, if not better, modes of publication are 'available, it would be ridiculous to insist on an absolete from of publication as if it were a ritual. Had the High Court found that publication-by newspapers was not effective enough to notify the public, the assessment list could not be given effect to unless publication was properly made. There is no such finding. On the other hand, publication through newspapers is now an accepted form of giving general notice. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the portion of section 149(1) which deals with the manner of publication, as opposed to the requirement for publication per se, is directory. Since there has been sufficient compliance in effecting the intention of the legislature to give notice to the public at large in the city of Patna, we cannot hold that the assessment lists prepared on the basis of the 1993 Rules are required to be set aside." (emphasis supplied) 12. In Phagwara Improvement Trust v. State of Punjab [1991 Supp. (2) SCC 753], the Supreme Court considered the requirement relating to publication with reference to Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922. Section 36 of the said Act required publication of a notice regarding framing of the Development Scheme inviting objections. The mode of publication prescribed was that the notification inviting objections shall be published in three consecutive weekly official gazette as well as in the newspapers. Section 36 of the said Act required publication of a notice regarding framing of the Development Scheme inviting objections. The mode of publication prescribed was that the notification inviting objections shall be published in three consecutive weekly official gazette as well as in the newspapers. Section 38 of the said Act required service of individual notices on the owners/occupiers of the lands proposed to be acquired under the Scheme. In that case, a notice regarding framing of the Development Scheme inviting objections by 5.5.1976 was published in the Gazettes dated 7th, 14th and 21st May, 1976. In other words, the publication of the notification in the Gazette was after the period specified for filing the objections had expired. The question was whether the defective publication in the Gazette would render publication of the entire scheme illegal and bad. The Supreme Court found that the notice had also been published in the newspapers dated 9th, 16th and 23rd April, 1976 and that all the affected persons were duly served with individual notices under section 38 of the Act and in fact, several of them had filed objections to the proposed acquisition and that such objections were duly considered. On these facts, the Supreme Court negatived the contention that non-observance of the provisions of section 36 by not publishing the notification in the Gazette before the expiry of the date for filing objections rendered the publication of the entire scheme illegal and bad. 13. There is however a clear distinction between requirement relating to publication of a sub-ordinate legislation in the Gazette, so to give effect to it, and requirement relating to publication of a proposal inviting objections, in the Gazette, as one of the several modes of publication. While the first is always mandatory, the second may, in a given set of circumstances, be directory. The case of Phagwara Improvement Trust related to the second category. In ITC Bhadrachalam Paper Boards v. Mandai Revenue Officer [ (1996) 6 SCC 634 ], dealing with a publication tailing under the first category, the Supreme Court held thus: The object of publication in the Gazette is not merely to give information to public. Official Gazette, as the very name indicates, is an official document. It is published under the authority of the Government Publication of an order or rule. The version as printed in the Gazette is, final. Official Gazette, as the very name indicates, is an official document. It is published under the authority of the Government Publication of an order or rule. The version as printed in the Gazette is, final. The same order or rule may also be published in newspapers or may be broadcast by radio or television. If a question arises when was a particular order or rule made, it is the date of Gazette publication that is relevant and not the date of publication in a newspaper or in the media {See Pankaj Jain Agencies v. Union of India [(1994) 5 SCC 1981]. In other words, the publication of an order or rule is the official irrefutable affirmation that a particular order or rule is made, is made on a particular day (where the order or rule takes effect from the date of its publication) and is made by a particular authority; it is also the official version of the order or rule. It is a common practice in Courts to refer to the Gazette whenever there is a doubt about the language of, or punctuation in, an Act, Rule or Order. Section 83 of the Evidence Act, 1872 says that the Court shall presume the genuineness of the Gazette. Court will take judicial notice of what is published therein, unlike the publication in a newspaper, which has to be proved as a fact as provided in the Evidence Act. If a dispute arises with respect to the precise language or contents of a rule or order, and if such rule or order is not published in the Official Gazette, it would become necessary to refer to the original itself, involving a good amount of inconvenience, delay and unnecessary controversies. It is for this reason that very often enactments provide that Rules and/or Regulations and certain type of orders made thereunder shall be published in the Official Gazette. To call such a requirement as a dispensable one - directory requirement is, in our opinion, unacceptable." 14. It is for this reason that very often enactments provide that Rules and/or Regulations and certain type of orders made thereunder shall be published in the Official Gazette. To call such a requirement as a dispensable one - directory requirement is, in our opinion, unacceptable." 14. The following principles can be culled out from the above decisions : (i) The question whether a particular provision of a statute is mandatory or directory depends on the object of the statute in making the provision, the nature and wording of the provision, the intention of the legislature, and the inconvenience or injustice that will be caused to the section of public affected by the provision, by reading the provision, one way or the other (that is as 'mandatory' or 'directory'). The mere use of word "shall" is not conclusive to hold that the provision is mandatory. . (ii) Where the provision is mandatory, exact compliance is required. Any defect in compliance will result in nullification of the action. On the other hand where the provision is directory, substantial compliance can be considered as compliance with the requirements of the provision. (iii) Where the provision uses the word 'shall' while requiring publication of any proposal, with the object of giving notice to the persons who are likely to be effected by implementation of such proposal and to enable them to file the objections/suggestions, the requirement regarding publication is mandatory. (iv) Where the parent statute prescribes the mode of publication of Subordinate legislation as publication in the Gazette, (in order to take effect from the date of publication), such a requirement is mandatory and imperative and cannot be dispensed with. (v) Where a single mode of publication is prescribed (by publication in the Gazette or other mode), for proposals inviting objections/suggestions, in a mandatory requirement of publication, then such mode of publication will also be mandatory. (vi) Where the requirement relating to publication is mandatory, but the provision relating to mode of publication is made by a delegated or subordinate legislation, prescribing more than one mode of publication, it is possible to construe such provision relating to mode of publication as directory, in which event substantial compliance with such provision relating to mode of publication, will be sufficient to meet the mandatory requirement of publication. For example, if the provision relating to mode of publication prescribes two modes of publication, and publication is made by the more effective of the two modes prescribed, any defect in the making the publication by the other mode, will not render the 'publication' bad. Resultantly the mandatory requirement of publication can be taken to be complied with. 15. We will now examine the provision of section 125(1) of the Act and Rule 3 of the Alteration Rules in the light of above principles. The purpose of requiring publication of the proposals (relating to change of headquarters, alteration of limits of Gram Panchayats, amalgamation of two or more Gram Panchayats or splitting of Gram Panchayats) is to draw the attention of the residents of the area who are likely to be affected by the proposals, so that they can submit their suggestions or file their objections to the proposals" which on consideration may enable the authority concerned to take a proper decision in the matter, either by dropping the proposals or by proceeding in terms of the proposals. The delimitation changes made in exercise of power under section 125(1) of the Act will materially affect the residents of the area. Such changes as contemplated in section 125(1) are not to be made lightly or routinely either for political convenience or at the whims of the Executive. There should be proper application of mind and valid reasons for effecting such changes. Therefore, section 125 mandates that the proposals shall be published inviting suggestions and objections and that such objections shall be considered before making any changes. In the circumstances, the requirement relating to publication contained in the proviso to section 125(1) is mandatory and not directory. 16. The next question is whether the mode of publication prescribed in Rule 3 is also mandatory in the sense that failure to strictly comply with its requirements of three modes of publication of the notification (that is, publication in the Madhya Pradesh Gazette, publication by affixture of the notification on the Notice Board of the Gram Panchayat, and publication by affixture of the notification at one or two conspicuous places of the affected area) will nullify the subsequent order made under section 125(1) of the Act. As noticed above, the object and intention of publication is that residents of the villages or areas affected by the proposal should have notice of the same so that they can file their objections and suggestions. The rule requires not merely publication in the M.P. Gazette, but also by affixture of such notification on the Notice Board of the Gram Panchayat and in one or two conspicuous places in the area affected by the proposal. This requirement, when viewed in contradistinction from the normal provision of publication only in the Gazette, shows that the rule making authority was conscious of the fact that the more effective way of notifying the villagers who are likely to be affected by such proposals, is by affixture in the Gram Panchayat Notice Board and other conspicuous places in the affected areas. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the requirement in rule 3 relating to publication of the proposal in M.P. Gazette as one of the three modes of publication, is directory and not mandatory. Therefore, even if there is any defect in the publication of the proposal in tha Gazette, if there is proper and adequate publication of the proposal by the two other modes prescribed, namely, affixture in the Notice Board of the Gram Panchayat concerned and affixture in one or two conspicuous places in the area affected by the proposal, then there will be substantial compliance with the requirement relating to publication of proposal. This should not however be construed as doing away with the requirement of publication of the proposal in the Gazette or reducing the importance of publication of the proposal in the Gazette. But any unintended defect in one mode of publication will not render the entire process ineffective, if the other models of publication are fully complied with thereby achieving the intended result of notifying the affected public. 17. This petition is not by a resident of any village or area affected by any of the notifications issued under section 125(1) of the Act. It is by a practising Advocate residing at Jabalpur. The cause espoused is only limited to the irregularity in the publication of the proposal notification dated 3.7.2004 in the M.P. Gazette. He does not contend that there was no publication by the other modes. It is by a practising Advocate residing at Jabalpur. The cause espoused is only limited to the irregularity in the publication of the proposal notification dated 3.7.2004 in the M.P. Gazette. He does not contend that there was no publication by the other modes. The respondents on the other hand have contended that the proposals dated 3.7.2004 have been affixed in all the Notice Boards of the respective Gram Panchayats and also at one or two conspicuous places in the affected areas, and thus, persons likely to be affected by the proposals had due notice of the same and therefore, there is substantial compliance in regard to requirement relating to publication. The petitioner is not in a position to rebut this statement. As stated above, no resident of any affected area has challenged the notifications dated 3.7.2004 on the ground that there was no publication of the said notification and that he was prevented from filing objections/suggestions. Therefore, we are not called upon to examine whether there was publication of the proposal relating to any particular Gram Panchayat by considering whether there was substantial compliance by affixture of the proposal on the Notice Board of Gram Panchayat and at one or two conspicuous places of affected areas. In the circumstances, though we hold that the publication of the proposals dated 3.7.2004 (requiring objections/suggestions to be filed by 8.7.2004 published in the M.P. Gazette dated 9.7.2004) is defective publication, that by itself would not render the notification dated 12.7.2004 issued under section 125(1) ineffective or illegal, if there was substantial compliance in regard to requirement of publication of the proposal by affixture of the notification to the Notice Board of the Gram Panchayat and affixture at one or two conspicuous places in the affected areas. Therefore, the question of declaring that any of the final notifications dated 12.7.2004 as being invalid does not arise. To repeat, we could have examined as to whether there was substantial compliance of the requirement relating to other modes of publication (by affixture in the Gram Panchayat Notice Boards and at other conspicuous places) only if any person from the affected area had challenged the proposal dated 3.7.2004 and the final notification dated 12.7.2004 on the ground that there was no publication of the proposal under the proviso to section 125(1) of the Act. 18. 18. Before parting, we however wish to impress upon the State Government the need to avoid half-hearted attempts in complying with requirements relating to publication. As repeatedly pointed out by the Supreme Court, the object of publishing the proposal is to invite objections of the persons likely to be affected by the proposals and to provide reasonable opportunity of being heard to those who are likely to be affected. The object of requiring publication is to find out the reaction of the residents of the respective villages and it is very much possible that in a particular case, the appropriate authority may even drop the proposal if the reaction of the resident was overwhelming, logical and bona fide. Publishing notifications in the Gazette in a routine and mechanical manner without ensuring that the same is available to the members of public with adequate time for filing objections, will weaken the democratic process. Similarly, if a notification is to be published by affixture to Notice Board of Gram Panchayat Office or other conspicuous place, it should be promptly complied with and a record be made of such publication, so that compliance with the requirement can be verified in future. 19. When a notice or proposal is required to be published in the Gazette, it should be published and made available to the public well in time before the last date prescribed for filing the objections/suggestions so that the aggrieved persons for whose benefit it is intended have time to know about the proposals and consider whether the proposals are proper or not, legal or not, beneficial or not and file objections. For example, publishing a notification dated 3.7.2004 requiring objections to be filed by 8.7.2004 and publishing it on 9.7.2004 in Gazette is meaningless. A notification dated 3.7.2004 requiring objections to be filed by 8.7.2004 will be bad even if it is published in the Gazette on 7.7.2004. This is because, though technically publication in such a case will be before the last date, there will be no time for the notification being made available to the public, or for the affected persons to prepare the objections/suggestions and to file the same. 20. In this behalf, we may usefully extract the following Editorial note in Phagwara Improvement Trust [at page 754 of 1991 Supp. 20. In this behalf, we may usefully extract the following Editorial note in Phagwara Improvement Trust [at page 754 of 1991 Supp. (2) SCC] which draws the attention to the malaise in Gazette publications: "However where publication in the Government Gazette on facts becomes of prime importance the related questions that can arise based on the actual malpractice in the publication of most Government Gazette of the States and of the Union of India, are : firstly whether the Gazette was actually printed on the date it bears and secondly on which date after publication were the copies made available for purchase to the public at large from the designated sale depots or posted to the subscribers of that part/section of the Gazette. These questions assume importance because the present actual state of affairs with regard to publication and distribution of Government Gazettes are notorious on both the counts (see also the observations of Prof. D.C. Wadhwa in his celebrated work: Repromulgation of Ordinances: Fraud on the Constitution of India). Usually the date of publication is assigned to the matter to be published as desired by the department issuing it and actual printing done subsequent to the printed date as per convenience. After printing in the Government press the despatch to the subscribers and the sale depots, of the Government itself or to authorised ones, can take weeks or even months. The underlying assumption that like daily newspapers the matter is published on the date of publication and made available to the public on that very date is certainly not true in the case of government gazettes as per present practice. In fact "to publish" means "prepare and issue for public sale". The question of publication in the Government Gazette whenever involved as a question of fact should therefore be further examined from both these standpoints. The question would assume constitutional significance when the statutory provision published in the Gazette incorporates a penal provision and a person ignorant of it is charged for the offence. Then the matter is to be judged on the anvil of Article 20(1) providing against ex post facto law. As to when a law becomes a "law in force" would assume crucial importance. Then the matter is to be judged on the anvil of Article 20(1) providing against ex post facto law. As to when a law becomes a "law in force" would assume crucial importance. Can the presumption provided by the General Clauses Acts on coming into operation of enactments (not explicit with regard to rules, regulations or bye-laws) or the general presumption that every citizen is presumed to know the law override the constitutional protection in the face of actual reality of the Government Gazette being non-existing or unavailable on the said date. With the legislatures and Government departments churning out sC1 much law does not the rule of law require that a copy of each Act, Ordinance, Rule, Regulation, Notification and Circular be freely available for inspection to the public at least in each district in a public library or reading room immediately after their publication or promulgation which makes them 'law in force' and in case of Acts and Ordinances a mandatory broadcast over the official media." 21. The following observations in B.K. Srinivasan v. State of Karnataka [ AIR 1987 SC 1059 ] will also have to be kept in mind: "There can be no doubt about the proposition that where a law, whether a law, whether Parliamentary or subordinate, demands compliance, those that are governed must be notified directly and reliably of the law and all changes and additions made to it by various processes. ..... 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, then 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 or not. It will then take effect from the date of such publication or promulgation. Where the parent statute prescribes the mode of publication or promulgation that mode must be followed. It will then take effect from the date of such publication or promulgation. Where the parent statute prescribes the mode of publication or promulgation that mode must be followed. Where the parent statute is silent, but the subordinate 'legislation itself prescribes the manner of publication, such a mode of publication may be sufficient, if reasonable. If the subordinate legislation does not prescribe the mode of publication or if the subordinate legislation prescribes a plainly unreasonable mode of publication, it will take effect only when it is published through the customarily recognised official channel, namely, the Official Gazette or some other reasonable mode of publication. There may be subordinate legislation which is concerned with a few individuals or is confined to small local areas. In such cases publication or promulgation by other means' may be sufficient. " (emphasis supplied) 22. To conclude, we have desisted from interfering in the matter in spite of the absurdity of notifications dated 3.7.2004 requiring objections to be filed by 8.7.2004, being published in the Gazette dated 9.7.2004, for the following reasons : (i) No resident of any of the villages/areas which are the subject-matter of the notifications under section 125(1) has challenged the notifications on the ground that he did not have notice of the proposals or on the ground that he did not have opportunity to file objections/suggestions. On the other hand, several persons who had notice of the proposal on account of its display on the notice-boards of the Gram Panchayats and in conspicuous places of the affected areas, appear to have filed objections and those objections are stated to have been considered; (ii) The petitioner though espousing a public cause does not say nor in a position to assert that proposals were not published by affixture on the notice boards of the respective Gram Panchayats and in other conspicuous places, (iii) The publication of the proposal by affixture at Gram Panchayat Notice Board and other conspicuous places, if properly done with sufficient time to file objections/suggestions, it would amount to substantial compliance in regard to the requirement of the publication; and (iv) the question whether there was such substantial compliance or not, in any given case, does not arise for our consideration in this Public Interest Litigation. The assumption of the petitioner that mere defect in publication of the proposals in the Gazette would be sufficient to nullify the entire process of effecting alterations under section 125(1) is however incorrect and baseless. There is, therefore, no need to direct re-initiation of the process of publication of proposal inviting objections/suggestions under the proviso to section 125(1), nor any ground to quash the notification under section 125(1), on the ground of defect in publication of the proposals in the Gazette. 23. In view of the aforesaid, subject to the observations in paragraphs 15, 16, 18 to 21, this petition is disposed of.