Darshan Singh and Others vs State of Punjab and Others

S.S. Nijjar and Surya Kant, JJ.—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.

It is not disputed that the decision to nominate the petitioners was taken u/s 12(2) of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961, which

reads as follows:-

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

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.

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

Sammbhu Nath Jha Vs. Kedar Prasad Sinha and Others, 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:-

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.

In the case of Municipal Board, Pushkar Vs. State Transport Authority, Rajasthan and Others, , it has been held that ''if an order is required to

be notified, date of the order is the date of the Notification"".

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.

In view of the above, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed.