AJIT J. GUNJAL, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner herein claims to be a partnership firm which has taken up a project of construction of hotel at Hospital road, Bangalore. It is the case; of the petitioner that to implement and advance tourism policy in Karnataka, the Government of Karnataka has come out with a Government Order dated 20. 01. 2003 bearing No. ITKC/ 296/ttt/2000, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-'a' of the paper book. The said Government order would indicate that in order to encourage the private sector's participation in all tourism related activities in the state, various incentives and concessions are extended to Tourism units during the Tourism Policy period between 2002 to 2007. Amongst the various tourism infrastructure to be provided to advance the cause of tourism, certain projects were envisaged in the Government Order and identified for the encouragement and development of tourism in the State, one of them being construction of Hotels consisting of boarding and lodging unit with such other facilities as referred to in the order. It is the case of the petitioner that the Managing partner of the petitioner -firm is in the business of hotel and catering activity for over a period of three decades. The petitioner-firm has taken up the present project relying upon various incentives and benefits held out in the aforesaid Government Order dated 20. 01. 2003 (Annexure-'a' ). It appears the petitioner-firm had entered into an agreement for the purchase of a particular plot at Hospital Road, bearing no. 15/1 (Old No. 23) measuring about 9670 sq. ft. with M/s. Model construction Company and others. A copy of the said agreement is to be found at Annexure-'b'. Since the petitioner-firm satisfied the requirement of the eligibility guidelines enumerated in the Government order dated 20. 1. 2003, an application was submitted by the petitioner-firm on 10. 7. 2003 with a project report for due consideration in accordance with the said government order. It appears the Government of Karnataka at this point of time had set up a unit which is called Karnataka Udyog Mitra, for consideration of the projects of this nature through a State Level Single window Agency for clearance, approval and recommendation of many types of projects of this nature and to provide infrastructure assistance in respect of such projects including the tourism projects. The said application is to be found at Annexure-'c' of the paper book. ( 2 ) IT is the case of the petitioner-firm that the State Level Single window Agency has granted approval of the said project, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-'d'. It is the case of the petitioner that on 20/ 27. 8. 2003, a Government Order was issued giving certain incentives under the tourism project and the said incentive also should be extended to the petitioner. A copy of the same is to be found at Annexure-'e'. The fourth condition at Annexure-'e' is in respect of incentives and concession as per the new tourism policy for the period between 2002 and 2007. It is the case of the petitioner that while purchasing the property bearing No. 15/1 for the purpose of construction of Hotel, an agreement to sell for the purchase of the said land has been entered into. It is submitted that as per the Government order dated 20. 1. 2003, one of the incentives was in respect of waiving of stamp duty and registration charges which are in the nature of exemption to the extent of 50% to 100% stamp duty for investments below / above 50 crores ; 50% in respect of the sale where the value of the sale is less than 50 crores and 100% in respect of the sale above 50 crores. The said exemption of the payment of stamp duty, according to the petitioner is under the new [incentive policy, which is to be given to the entrepreneur. It appears certain concession was also given in respect of registration charges at the rate of Re. 1/- for every Rs. 1,000/ -. Annexure-'f' is a representation given by the petitioner to the concerned authorities to the effect that they are entitled for the said concession in view of the fact that they are advancing cause of tourism. In the said application, the petitioner brought to the notice of the 1st respondent, the Government order dated 20th July 2003 as well as further orders passed in the petitioners case i. e. , the orders of the Single Window Agency and also that of the Government of Karnataka. The petitioner, pursuant to the government order issued submitted that he is entitled for the benefit of the incentive/exemption relating to stamp duty and registration charges. The petitioner, pursuant to the government order issued submitted that he is entitled for the benefit of the incentive/exemption relating to stamp duty and registration charges. When the document was presented for registration, the 1st respondent issued an endorsement on 13. 11. 2003, a copy of which is produced at annexure-'j'. In the said endorsement, it was pointed out that with effect from 01. 04. 2003, the incentive which was given has been withdrawn pursuant to a Government Order. The copy of the said withdrawal is to be found at Annexures-'h'and'j', The Government orders are dated 24. 04. 2003 withdrawing the said incentive in respect of the stamp duty as well as the registration charges. ( 3 ) MR. Ramesh, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would press into service only only contention to the effect that the earlier government order extending the exemption in respect of the stamp duty and also the concession in respect of the registration charges having been published in a gazette, the same having been withdrawn pursuant to another gazette extra ordinary notification dated 23. 04. 2003 which was not circulated or put up for sale, the said notifications at Annexures-'h' and 'j' are liable to be set aside. He further submits that the gazette extra ordinary notification having not been widely circulated and not having been put up for sale such gazette notification does not have sanctity of law under which the incentives, exemption / concession given in the earlier notification are withdrawn. He would rely an an unreported Division Bench ruling of this Court in W. A. No. 41508 / 2003 and connected matters in the case of Dr. Parlose and Others Vs. State of Karnataka disposed of on 17. 12. 2003 and another decision in the case of Indo Nissin Foods Ltd. , Vs. Appraiser of Customs reported in ILR 1993 (2) Kar 1548. ( 4 ) MR. Keshava Reddy, learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that there is hardly any distinction between gazette notification and gazette extraordinary notification. Apparently, the nomenclature would itself show that the gazette extraordinarly is published when emergent action is to be notified and it was published. In these circumstances, he submits that the earlier exemption and concession given towards the stamp duty and the registration charges having been withdrawn, the question of extending the benefit of the earlier notification hardly arises. Apparently, the nomenclature would itself show that the gazette extraordinarly is published when emergent action is to be notified and it was published. In these circumstances, he submits that the earlier exemption and concession given towards the stamp duty and the registration charges having been withdrawn, the question of extending the benefit of the earlier notification hardly arises. In the circumstances, he submits that notification does not call for interference and petition is liable tio be rejected. ( 5 ) THE only question which falls for consideration in these proceedings is that whether the notification issued in the extraordinary gazette withdrawing the incentives given to the petitioner to run a hotel was widely published and that the petitioner was aware of the said withdrawal of the incentives. ( 6 ) DURING the course of hearing, this Court had directed the learned government Advocate to file an affidavit of the competent person of government press to show as to when the Gazette extra ordinary was published, how many copies were printed and howmany were put up for sale. ( 7 ) MR. Shankar Sapthasagar, working as Deputy Director (Administration Accounts) Government Press, Peenya 1st Stage, Bangalore has filed his affidavit. In the affidavit at para 5, he would state that "as far as the gazette (extraordinary) which is subject matter of this writ petition is concerned, 550 copies were printed ; 500 copies were supplied to the Departments for onward publication in their offices and the remaining copies were kept in the Book depot for sale. As and when there is more demand for the copies, since the matter is kept ready, on a short notice any required number or copdes will be printed and made available to the public. The Gazettes including Gazette (extraordinary) are kept for sale as soon as the Gazettes are printed. " ( 8 ) SINCE the only question which is urged by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the gazette was not given into wide publicity nor it was put up for sale, he would rely on the statement made by the Deputy Director. Even otherwise, it is to be noticed that clause 323 of the Manual, Government Press would deal with, what is a gazette extra-ordinary and the sale of gazettes and its parts. Clause 305 of the said manual would relate to free supply of gazettes. Even otherwise, it is to be noticed that clause 323 of the Manual, Government Press would deal with, what is a gazette extra-ordinary and the sale of gazettes and its parts. Clause 305 of the said manual would relate to free supply of gazettes. Sub-clause (1) of Clause 305 would deal with free supply of Gazettes, full or parts must be made only on proper authority or Government orders which would necessarily mean that under the Government order and authority, the supply of full or free supply must be made. Sub-clause (2) of Clause 305 would relate to supply of copies of Mysore Gazette free of cost to certain private institutions and agencies authorised by the Government, which are in the nature of editors of all Daily newspapers in Mysore State, the Secretary of All India newspapers Editors' Conference, New Delhi; Established News Agencies such as P. T. I. , U. N. I. , etc. , on the advice of the Director of Information and Tourism ; Recognised Bar Associations at Taluk and District headquarters ; Officers of all recognised parties in the State Legislature. ( 9 ) CLAUSE 320 would deal, with the printing and supply of Gazettes and its parts. Sub-clause (2) of Clause 320 would direct the Compiler who is also authorised to supply live copies of the Gazette in English and kannada every week to the Government Central Book Depot. Bangalore for sale to the public at Rs. 6/-, the realisation being credited to the Gazette budget Head XLLX Stationery and Printing, which would necessarily mean that all the Government Publications be in the nature of Gazette extra ordinary are put up for sale in the Government Central depot as contemplated under sub-clause (2) of clause 320. ( 10 ) WHAT is gazette extraordinary, is dealt in clause 323 of the Manual. It is useful to extract sub-clause (1) of clause 323 which would read as follows : 323 (1) There will be certain matters of State importance which have to be brought into force and also to the notice of the public by publication in an Extraordinary Issue of the Mysore Gazette on a particular day. These include Ordinances issued by the President of India, Governor of Mysore, proclamation of the State of emergency, Summoning of the Houses of legislature and also their Prorogation etc. These include Ordinances issued by the President of India, Governor of Mysore, proclamation of the State of emergency, Summoning of the Houses of legislature and also their Prorogation etc. , also the Notifications issued by or on behalf of the Election Commission, Appropriation Acts; sometimes certain of the Acts and other Statutory matters which have received the assent of the President or Governor, Bills and important Notifications involving money or bar of limitation or validation have also to be published as Gazette Extraordinary on particular day, though their publication in the next Weekly Gazette but for the above expediency would also have satisfied legal requirements. ( 11 ) IN the latter portion, it is to be noticed that notifications involving money or bar of limitation or other exigencies or contingencies or valuation are to be published as Gazette extra-ordinary on particular day, though their publication in the next weekly gazette but for the above expediency also would have satisfied legal requirements. A reading of this provision would clearly indicate and a compendious roading of sub-clause (2) and (3)would clearly indicate that gazette extraordinary is published when there are certain exigencies which cannot wait until the regular weekly gazette is published. Apparently, in the case on hand extraordinary gazette is published in view of the fact that certain incentives, which are given under the tourism policy are withdrawn which would relate to the exemption of 50% of stamp duty and scaling down of the registration charges. If the said provisions of the manual of Government press is read in tandem with government extra ordinary publication and also affidavit filed by the deputy Director Government Press, I am of the considered view that the gazette extraordinary withdrawing the incentives was made public and put up for sale. Obviously it would mean that it was within the knowledge of the petitioners. ( 12 ) THIS takes us to the next question whether on facts, the petitioner is entitled for relief assuming that he was not aware of the publication of the gazette extra ordinary withdrawing the incentives. ( 13 ) THE Government order is issued on 20th January-2003 as per annexure 'a'. Certain incentives are given to advance the cause of tourism policy. Admittedly, the agreement to sell entered into between the petitioner and his vendor has come about on 07. 07. 2003. The area is 9670 sq. ft. ( 13 ) THE Government order is issued on 20th January-2003 as per annexure 'a'. Certain incentives are given to advance the cause of tourism policy. Admittedly, the agreement to sell entered into between the petitioner and his vendor has come about on 07. 07. 2003. The area is 9670 sq. ft. at the rate of Rs. 3,074/- per sq. ft. It is obvious that the sale has come about subsequent to the agreement dated 07. 07. 2003, which would necessarily mean that after the withdrawal of the said incentives, the petitioner has ventured into this business. Apparently, the petitioner relies only on the tourism policy. But however, a perusal of the said tourism policy, a copy of which is produced at. Annexure-'a' would deal with the existing facility to both the Karnataka and State Corporation and by inviting private sector operators. Of course the other items would be in respect of the outdoor facilities, which are to be extended to the tourist and also the information centre, food drop centre etc. The claim of the petitioner is that he ventured into this business of promoting tourism only on the basis of the notification giving certain benefits as stated earlier in respect of the protection of stamp duty and scaling down of registration fee. The petitioner heavily relies on Annexure-'e', which emanates from the office of the Commissioner of tourism. A reading of the said communication does not give an indication that it is a blanket incentive, which has been given to the petitioner. Apparently, no such incentive obviously could have been given under the said communication at annexure-'e'. As stated the communication is dated 20/27. 8. 2003 by which time the said incentive, which was extended had already been withdrawn pursuant to the Government notification dated 7. 4. 2003. The recommendations and the conditions at item No. 4 would relates to "incentives and concession will be offered as per the new tourism policy 2002-2007 as modified ". ( 14 ) CONSEQUENTLY, the petitioner cannot be heard to say that after withdrawal of the said incentive pursuant to the said notification, he is still entitled to the said incentive regarding reduction of stamp duty and scaling down of the Registration fee. Even on facts, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled for the reliefs sought for. Even on facts, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled for the reliefs sought for. In so far as the two judgments which are relied on by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner i. e. , unreported judgment, which is referred to above and a division Bench ruling of this Court Indo Nissin Foods Ltd. , Vs. Appraiser of Customs reported in ILR 1893 (2) Kar 1548 is concerned, it is to be noticed what fell for consideration in both the decisions is regarding publication of official gazette. Notifying its not complete unless it is put up in a place where normally they are made available. The ratio of both the decisions is only in respect of accessibility of the Gazette to the public and the public after coming to know of the said notification, it would be effective. Apparently, in one of the cases, in the case of Indo Nisan Foods Limited, the Division Bench found fault with the respondents who had not filed the statement of objections to the averments in the writ petition. Neither the contentions were traversed by placing the relevant basic facts pleaded in the writ petition. That is also one of the reason as to why the Division bench is of the opinion that; the statement made by the petitioner have gone uncontested. But however, that is not the case here. As stated earlier, said gazette extraordinary was put up for sale and several copies were printed and circulated in public. Consequently, I do not find any merit in this petition. Petition stands rejected: