Discuss (a) substantial compliance

The question: the statutory requirement's breach — the CONSEQUENCE? (the act's invalidity or the mere irregularity?) — the "mandatory vs directory" doctrine (the obedience's effect). The imperative (mandatory) enactments: the compliance REQUIRED for validity — the breach nullifies (the non-compliant act void: the notice-not-given = the notice's invalidity; the condition- omitted = the order's collapse); the marks: the mandatory words ("shall," "must") + the right-and- benefit's character (the provision's purpose) + the nullity's consequence-intent. The directory enactments: the compliance DESIRED but the breach tolerable — the substantial-compliance doctrine (the act's validity despite the deviation: the irregularity's record; the prejudice's absence); the marks: the directory construction's signs (the procedural provision; the no-prejudice breach; the substantial compliance). The test's evolution (the exam's craft): the old verbal test (the "shall"-vs-"may" formalism) → the modern purposive test: the provision's purpose-and- consequences analysis (the intention question: what did the legislature intend as the breach's consequence? the right's protection? then mandatory; the convenience's provision? then directory) — the classic modern formulation: the court asks not "is it mandatory?" but "what is the breach's effect on the provision's purpose?"; the discretion's supervision's kinship (the procedural fairness's substantial-compliance faces). The Nepal practice: the administrative-law applications (the notice-and-hearing requirements: the mandatory directory analysis in the writ cases; the election- and-local-law procedure cases); the honest audit (the Nepali courts' purposive…