Judgment S.S.Nijjar and Surya Kant JJ. 1. On 23.11.2004, the State of Punjab had sent a Notification to the Controller, Printing and Stationery, Punjab with a request to publish the Notification in the Punjab Extraordinary Gazette. By this Notification, petitioner No. 1 has been nominated as Chairman and petitioners No. 2 and 3 as Members of the Market Committee, Anandpur Sahib, Distt. Ropar. Before this notification could be published in the Gazette, the respondents have issued another Notification dated 29.11.2004 which is styled as an amendment of the notification dated 23.11.2004. The notification has also been sent to the Controller, Printing and Stationery, Punjab with a request to publish in the Punjab Extraorindary Gazette. It is not disputed by Mr. Randhawa that the notification dated 23.11.2004 has not been published in the Punjab Government Gazette. He, however, submits that as soon as the Notification dated 23.11.2004 was brought to the notice of the petitioners, it vested certain rights in them. The withdrawal of the offices which had been offered to the petitioners by Notification dated 23.11.2004 by the subsequent Notification dated 29.11.2004, causes civil consequences. Therefore, subsequent Notification dated 29.11.2004 could not have been given effect to without complying with rules of natural justice. 2. It is not disputed that the decision to nominate the petitioners was taken under Section 12(2) of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 , which reads as follows:- "12. Constitution of Committees.- (1) A Committee shall consist of nine or sixteen members as the State Government may in each case determine, out of whom one shall be appointed by the State Government from amongst its officials. Provided that where in a notified market area, there is in existence a Co-operative Society, the Committee shall consist often or seventeen members, as the case may be. (2) The remaining members shall be nominated by the State Government by notification in the official gazette as follows:- (a) if the Committee is to consist of nine members, there shall be nominated - (i) five members from amongst such producers, who are members of Gram Panchayats or Panchayat Samities situated in the notified market area:- xxx xxx xxx xxx XXX XXX XXX 3. Mr. Randhawa further contents that the publication of the Notification was merely a ministerial act and as soon as it was signed on behalf of the Governor of Punjab, it became effective. 4. Mr. Randhawa further contents that the publication of the Notification was merely a ministerial act and as soon as it was signed on behalf of the Governor of Punjab, it became effective. 4. Having perused the relevant provision of the Act reproduced above, we are of the view that "nomination" of the petitioners could be effective only on the publication of the notification in the official gazette. Since the notification was admittedly not published in the official gazette, the petitioners cannot be said to have been duly nominated. This view of ours will find support from the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shambhu Nath v. Kedar Prasad, A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 1515 wherein, while interpreting Sub Section (1) of Section 3 of the Commissions of Enquiry Act, which requires appointment of a Commission of Enquiry by notification in the "official gazette", their Lordships held as follows:- "14. Plain reading of the above sub-section makes it manifest that the notification appointing a commission of inquiry must be published to the official gazette. It is an imperative requirement and cannot be dispensed with. The Commission of inquiry is appointed for the purpose of making an inquiry into some matter of public importance. The schedule containing the various allegations in the present case was a part of the notification dated March 12, 1968 and specified definite matters of public importance which were to be inquired into by the Commission. As such, the publication of the schedule in the official gazette should be held to be in compliance with the statutory requirement. The object of publication in an official gazette is two fold: to give publicity to the notification and further to provide authenticity to the contents of that notification in cast some dispute arises with regard to the contents. 5. In the case of Municipal Board, Pushkar v. State Transport Authority, Rajasthan and Ors. A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 458, it has been held that if an order is required to be notified, date of the order is the date of the Notification". 6. In the present case, there being no publication of the proposed Notification dated 23.11.2004, we are of the view that no legally enforceable rights were created in favour of the petitioners. 7. In view of the above, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed.