JIWANAND SHARMA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.

(2.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in substance, the petitioners have challenged the notification, dated 3rd October, 2006. The said notification reads thus:

(3.) THE effect of issuing notification under Section 29 of the Act of 1984 is, essentially, to apply the provisions of the Act to such public religious institutions and charitable endowments covered under Schedule I. The ground on which that action is challenged, is that the notification, so issued by the State Government, was not laid before the Legislative Assembly of the State. No doubt, when the writ petition was filed, that requirement was not complied with. However, it is indisputable that during the pendency of the writ petition, not only the notification pertaining to "Shri Hanogi Mata Mandir" was laid before the Legislative Assembly, but also of other Trusts, as is evident from the minutes of the Legislative Assembly, dated 10th August, 2009. In other words, the requirement of sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the Act has already been complied with in the present case. From the language of sub-section(2) of Section 29, we have no manner of doubt that it is a directory provision, as regards the requirement of time within which the notification issued by the State Government must be laid before the Legislative Assembly. The requirement to lay the notification before the Legislative Assembly of the State is, no doubt, indispensable, but no fixed time therefor has been provided in law. The expression used is "as soon as possible" after issuance of the notification. Indeed, the expression "as soon as possible" requires the authority to lay notification before the Legislative Assembly of the State at the earliest opportunity. In this case, it has been placed almost around 3 years from the issuance of the notification. That does not mean that the notification is rendered null and void or invalid.