Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

15. However, Mr. S. Ramalingam., in Thirumathi Reeta v. The State of Tamilnadu 1998 W.L.R. 277, following the decision of the Apex Court in Collector (District Magistrate), Allahabad v. Raja Ram , has held as follows:

6. The provisions of Section 4(1) have been held to be mandatory in more than one decision. No part of it can be dispensed with. Therefore, there is a duty cast on the authority not only to publish a notification in the Official Gazette but also to cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the locality. The contention of the petitioner is that there was no publication of the substance of 4(1) notification in the locality. On this aspect, after verification of the records, the learned Additional Government Pleader, on instructions, states that the substance of the notification was not published in the locality. The explanation of the learned Additional Government Pleader is that the said publication would serve no purpose when an enquiry under Section 5-A has been decided to be dispensed with. According to the learned Additional Government Pleader, the object of publishing the substance of the notification at convenient places is to be enable the public to state their respective view points in an enquiry to be held under Section 5-A of the Act and when such an enquiry is not contemplated and has been dispensed with, no useful purpose would be served by publishing the substance of the notification in the locality. This argument of the learned Additional Government Pleader, though attractive, has not been accepted by the Supreme Court.