JUDGMENT

Sanjay Karol, C.J. - Whether non-publication of the Notification in the Official Gazette establishing Vigilance Police Station in Bihar at Patna, would render registration of the FIR(s); investigation(s) carried out and the trial(s) commenced, conducted or concluded pursuant thereto, to be illegal and void ab initio is the question which this Court is called upon to answer.

2. Petitioner contends that by virtue of Section 4(36) of the Bihar and Orissa General Clauses Act, 1917 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), publication of such Notification is mandatory. Also, in the absence of compliance thereof, no judicial notice of a fact can be taken under the provisions of Section 57(7) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as the Evidence Act)

3. It is further contended that on 6th June, 1973, though the Government of Bihar had issued a Notification constituting a Vigilance Police Station in Bihar at Patna, but since the same was never published in the Official Gazette, as such all resultant proceedings stand vitiated, being null and void.

4. Assuming the Notification not to have been published in the Official Gazette, we proceed to adjudicate the issue.

5. At the threshold, we may point out that the present petition is in the nature of a public interest litigation. What is the public interest in pursuing such a matter is not reflective or even remotely inferred from the record. Rather than seeking a mandamus asking the State to publish the Notification in the Gazette, on the purported argument of non-compliance of law, petitioner seeks a declaration of all actions (investigation and trial) to be held illegal and inoperative. Petitioner is not a party to any such proceedings. Nor has he been able to highlight any prejudice, be it of whatever nature, caused to anyone of the accused or the State, much less to him. At this point in time, we may only observe that petitioner has also not fulfilled the obligations of approaching the authorities inviting inaction, if any, on their part, which he ought to have so done, prior to approaching this Court, more so, in view of the law laid down in D. N. Jeevaraj Vs. Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka & Ors, (2016) 2 SCC 653 , wherein Hon'ble the Apex Court in paragraphs 34 to 39 observed as under:-

"34. The learned counsel for the parties addressed us on the question of the bona fides of Nagalaxmi Bai in filing a public interest litigation. We leave this question open and do not express any opinion on the correctness or otherwise of the decision of the High Court in this regard.

35. However, we note that generally speaking, procedural technicalities ought to take a back seat in public interest litigation. This Court held in Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P. [ Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P., (1989) Supp1 SCC 504] to this effect as follows: (SCC p. 515, para 16)

"16. The writ petitions before us are not inter parties disputes and have been raised by way of public interest litigation and the controversy before the court is as to whether for social safety and for creating a hazardless environment for the people to live in, mining in the area should be permitted or stopped. We may not be taken to have said that for public interest litigations, procedural laws do not apply. At the same time it has to be remembered that every technicality in the procedural law is not available as a defence when a matter of grave public importance is for consideration before the court."

36. A considerable amount has been said about public interest litigation in R&M Trust [ R&M Trust v. Koramangala Residents Vigilance Group, (2005) 3 SCC 91] and it is not necessary for us to dwell any further on this except to say that in issues pertaining to good governance, the courts ought to be somewhat more liberal in entertaining public interest litigation. However, in matters that may not be of moment or a litigation essentially directed against