3 shall mutatis mutandis be followed. The Division Bench held that the procedure prescribed under section 3(3) is mandatory in nature and not calling for objections would be violation of principles of natural justice. In Laxman Jagannath Yadav , as a matter of fact, the draft Notification was published in the newspaper, however the same did not contain any invitation from public to file objections. In the present case, it is an admitted position that the draft Notification dated 1 March 2014 was not even published in any newspaper circulating in the area specified in the final Notification proclaiming the intention of the Government to issue the final Notification so as to invite any objections from public. In these circumstances, indubitably, the mandatory procedural compliances prescribed under subsections (3), (4) & (5) of section 3 of the said Act have not been followed. Non-publication of the draft Notification had clearly resulted in denial of opportunity to public to file objections to the proposal of the State Government thereby violating the principles of natural justice. Pertinently, the impugned final Notification specifically states that the Government has not received any objections to the proclamation. Thus, applying the principles laid down in the case of Laxman Jagannth Yadav , we have no hesitation in concluding that the impugned Notifications are bad in law.
