' NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, J.---This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, has been tiled for declaring the Notification No,SOIV/6(28)/89-UC(Pipri) dated 22- 10-1990, issued by the Government of Sindh, Local Government, Public Health Engineering and Rural Development Department, Karachi, under section 12 of the Sindh Local Government Ordinance, 1979, hereinafter called the Ordinance, as illegal, without any lawful authority, and for quashing the same. The facts relevant for decision of this petition are as follows:
2. The Union Council Pipri, Taluka Dadu, on 28-3-1990 in its special meeting passed a resolution, whereby it was resolved that Union Council Pipri be bifurcated into two Union Councils viz. Pipri and Muradabad Channa. Further, it was resolved that Union Council Pipri would consist of dehs Dadu, Pipri, Duado, and Soonhyon and three dehs viz. Bakrani, Waryaso, and Bhuti, were to be in the territorial jurisdiction of Union Council Muradabad Channa. This meeting was presided by Haji Khan Bhand, as Chairman and was attended by 13 others, including the present three petitioneRs, Thereafter, the Governmnet of Sindh, Housing and Town Planning, Local Government Rural Development Department issued a Notification dated 20-6-1990, in the Sindh Gazette, under section 12 of the Ordinance, inviting objections from the residents of Union Councils concerned to be submitted to the Additional Chief Secretary, Local Government, within 14 days from the publication of said Notification. In this Notification, the Union Council Pipri with its Headquarter at village Pipri was shown as consisting of Dehs Pipri, Dadu, Duabo, Soonhyon, and Union Council Changlani comprised of Dehs Bakrani, Waryaso, and Bhuti, showing village Changlani as its Headquarter. Thereafter, the impugned Notification was issued by the Government of Sindh, showing the area of Union Council Pipri consisting of Pipri, Dadu and Duabo, and Union Council Muradabad Channa with its Headquarter at village Muradabad Channa, having the area of Deh Bakrani, Waryaso, Bhuti and Soonhyon. It is alleged that the impugned notification is in violation of section 12 of the Ordinance, which is as follows:-- "S.
12. Division and amalgamation of councils:--
(1) Government may, after inviting objections from the residents of a council or, as the case may be, councils and hearing those from amongst them, who wish to be heard, by notification, divide the council into two or more councils or amalgamate two or more councils and may specify in the notification the consequence which may ensue upon such division or amalgamation.
(2) When as a result of such division or amalgamation, any council is constituted in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance, the existing members of the council so divided or amalgamated shall become the members of such council or councils as Government may, by notification specify, as if such members had been elected to that council.
3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that impugned Notification is in violation of the spirit of provisions of section 12 of the Ordinance, inasmuch as, the bifurcation of Union Council Pipri was to be done after hearing the residents of the Union Council and since the impugned Notification and the notification dated 20-6-1990 were published in the Sindh Government Gazette, whose circulation is very limited and is confined to official circles only: the residents of Union Council of Pipri had no opportunity to put up their point of view before the relevant authority. Also, it has been argued that residents of Union Council Pipri, as is evident from the resolution referred to above, had desired that Deh Soonhyon be attached with Union Council Pipri, whereas by virtue of said Notification Deh Soonhyon has been made part of Union Council Muradabad Channa, which is ex facie against the wishes of the concerned people. In support of these contentions reliance is placed on the case of Indian jurisdiction viz. AIR 1972 Orissa 35 Gopabandhu Das v. State of Orissa.
In this case, in para. 4, the following observations have been made:-- "It is equally well known that the ordinary inhabitants have no access to the official Gazette and that appears to be the reason why the Legislature provided that the intention of the Government to constitute an area into a notified area should be published at least in one newspaper--a newspaper circulating in the area concerned. It cannot, therefore, be said that the requirement of the intention of the Government to be published in a newspaper circulating in the area is a mere idle formality and non-compliance with it does not materially affect the right of the inhabitants.
The use of expression "at least" in cl.1(a) is significant and equally significant is the fact that the subsection provides not merely for publication in a newspaper but insists on the publication to be made in a newspaper circulating in the area."
' Learned counsel also placed reliance on the case reported in AIR 1969 Patna 88 Siya Sharan Sinha and others v. State of Bihar and otheRs, The observation relied upon is as follows:- "In view of the provisions of aforesaid, it is clear that the intention of the Legislature was that the declaration of the intention of the State Government must be published in the locality in some other manner, apart from the publication in the official Gazette, as he State Government may think fit and proper to direct, so that any inhabitant of the town or the area or any rate-payer of the Municipality concerned if it was a case covered by the other clause of subsection (1) of section 4, may get an opportunity to submit his objection through the District Magistrate, within six weeks from the date of the publication of the declaration under section 4 of the Act."
4. The contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners have no force and the cases cited above are distinguishable. In the above-cited cases, under the law applicable to them, the publication of notice in newspaper was a necessary legal requirement. This is evident from the above quotations of the said cases. In the instant case, no provision of rule has been brought to our notice, showing that besides Gazette Notification the notice should also have been published in a newspapaper. In fact, Notification in official Gazette by itself is enough for the purpose of bringing the contents of notification to notice of the public-at-large and there is no need for giving it further publicity in any other manner unless the law otherwise so directs. The copies of said Notification amongst others, were also sent to the Commissioner, Hyderabad Division. Director, Local Government, Hyderabad, Deputy Commissioner Dadu, Assistant Director Local Government, Dadu and Chairman Union Council Pipri Dadu. This unequivocally demonstrates that apart from publication of notice in the official Gazette, enough publicity was given to said Notification. For interpreting statutes generally accepted principles are that the interpretation should as a rule, be natural, appropriate, and simple, and ordinary meaning of the words shall normally be followed. The rules of interpretation do not create any new law nor the Courts can stretch the meaning of the words so as to bring in their fold entirely a new rule of law, which otherwise has not been specifically laid down by the legislature. In this particular case the petitioners want that notice, inviting objections under section 12 of the Ordinance, should have simultaneously been given in the Gazette notification and the newspaper, which is not the legal requirement of said section.
5. The counter-affidavit filed by Abdul Aziz Soomro, Development Officer Local Government Dadu shows that after the objections were invited for bifurcation of said Union (Council), as many as 10 persons, had filed objections including Munir Ahmad Channa Advocate Ex.M.PA., Haji Adam Khan Balouch, sitting Councillor, Union Council Pipri, Haji Panwhar and Adar Panwhar, resident of Deh Soonhyon. Their objections were minutely examined and, keeping in view the requirement that a Union Council, as far as possible, be compact and contiguous with territorial unity, the bifurcation of Union Council Pipri, which was in the larger interest of the people of that area, was done. As regards attaching Dehs Soonhyon with Union Council Muradabad Channa, it is noted that it falls within the exclusive domain of the Government that which local area be attached to a Union Council. Nothing has been brought on record to show that by attaching Deh Soonhyon to Union Council Muradabad Channa, any illegality was done by the Government.
' On 2-11-1992 by a short order we had dismissed this petition and above are the reasons for the same.