A.M.KHANWILKAR - (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: "(Authorized-English Text of this Department Notification No.LCD-B(2)/2005 dated 3rd October, 2006 as required under article 348(3) of the Constitution of India) Government of Himachal Pradesh Language Art and Culture Department No.LCD-F(12)-2/2005 Dated Shimla-2, the 3rd October, 2006. "NOTIFICATION" Whereas the State Government is of the opinion that it is expedient and necessary in the public interest to take steps for the better administration, for the protection and preservation of properties appurtenant to "Shri Hanogi Mata Mandir, Aut Sub Tehsil, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh". Now therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by the Sub-Section(1) of section 29 of the Himachal Pradesh Hindu Public Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act 1984 (Act No.18 of 1984), the Governor, Himachal Pradesh is pleased to add the following temple at Sl.No.28 in Schedule-I of the aforesaid Act namely:- "Shri Hanogi Mata Mandir, Aut Sub Tehsil, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh". By Order Sd/- Principal Secretary (LAC) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh." Section 29 of the Himachal Pradesh Hindu Public Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1984 reads thus: "29. (1) The Government may, if it is of opinion that it is expedient or necessary in the public interest so to do, by notification in the official Gazette, add to, omit from, Schedule I any Hindu public religious institution and charitable endowment and on any such notification being issued, the Schedule-I shall be deemed to be amended accordingly. (2) Every such notification shall, as soon as possible after it is issued be laid before the Legislative Assembly of the State."
(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.;