1. The petitioners have ob-tained a rule from Court as to why the two notifications dated 3.02.1976 contained in Annexure-3 and the other dated 4-2-1976 contained in Annexure-2 issued by the State of Bihar acting in exercise of the powers under Sections 388 and 389 of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act, (briefly the Act) respectively, be not quashed and cancelled.

2. The State of Bihar earlier had issued a draft notification under Sec.388 (1) of the Act on 26-6-1973 to consti-tute a notified area known as Maner Notified Area comprising seven villages, namely, (1) Maner, (2) Sarai Maner, (3) Ahiyapur Maner, (4) Nahinawan, (5) Mohanpur, (6) Mahopur and (7) Geyaspur, as mentioned in the said notifications is-suing objections and suggestions from the persons likely to be affected and suggest-ing application of various provisions of the Act mentioned in the Schedule of the Act such as Sections 8 to 10, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29 to 33 and 34, 35, 50 (removal of the vice-chairman) and various other provisions which need not be mentioned. On 4-2-1976 the Government of Bihar issued another notification (Annexure-2) in the exercise of the powers under Sec.388 of the Act declaring the constitution of a notified area consisting of only the first five villages mentioned in the draft noti-fications with boundaries in a schedule at-tached thereto which were formed into a Notified Area Committee.

3. By the other notification dated 3-2-1976 (Annexure-3) the State of Bihar in exercise of the powers under Sec.389 (c) appointed a Committee for carry-ing out the purposes of the notified area consisting of as many as 39 members.

4. The case of the petitioners is that the first notification (Annexure-2) is bad in law on the ground that while altering the boundaries of the notified area as originally prepared, the State Govern-ment did not ascertain the views of the residents of the villages which were sought to be included in the earlier noti-fication (Annexure-1). The second noti-fication (Annexure-3) appointing the Committee is challenged on the ground that it was published even earlier than the formation of the notified area and, therefore, was invalid.

5. We shall take up for considera-tion the first notification dated 4-2-1976 (Annexure-2). As already stated earlier, this notification is challenged on the sole ground that the proposed boundaries of the notified area were altered under order ascertaining the views of the two villages. For constituting a notified area the State Government has been empowered to make declaration by a notification, if it thinks necessary, to make administrative provi-sions for all or any of the purposes of this Act in any area specified in the noti-fication, other than a municipality or a cantonment.

6. From the above provision under which a notified area may take its birth, it is abundantly clear that in issuing such a declaration, the State Government has in its wisdom to take a decision as to whether it is necessary to make any administrative provision for any particular area for all or any of the purposes of the Act. The language used in Sec.388 (1), in our view is unqualified and does not call for hearing any objections or ascertaining the views of the persons of the area in the matter. The argument seems to be based, on the provisions con-tained in Sections 4 to 6 of the Act deal-ing with the creation of municipalities. Under Sec. 4 the State Government takes a decision if the conditions laid down under Sec. 4 (1) (a) are satisfied, to constitute any town or area as a Muni-cipality and necessary declaration is to be published in the official gazette. Under Sec. 5 the State Government is to take into consideration any objection submit-ted by any inhabitant of the town or area under the procedure prescribed in this Section. The object of these provisions, is to ascertain the view of the residents of the area and hear their objections or suggestions, inasmuch as the constitution of a municipality is likely to ex