JUDGMENT R.C. Chavan, J.
1. Rule. By consent made returnable forthwith.
2. Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner, learned A.G.P. for respondent No. 2 and learned Advocate for Respondents No. 1 & 3.
3. Petitioner No. 2 is owner of newspaper, by name "Iman Times", which the petitioner claims to be widely circulated newspapers in Vidarbha and adjoining areas. The newspaper was registered with respondent No. 3 Registrar of Newspapers on 30th October, 2002. The petitioners claim to have made mandatory declaration before respondent No. 2 District Magistrate on 01.01.2003 giving all the necessary details. The newspaper was initially printed from "Noori Press". Subsequently the petitioner assigned the printing work to "Sheetal Press". The petitioners sought from respondent No. 3 registration (N.R.I.) number for newspaper and submitted requisite application on 28th February, 2005. Since no reply was received, in spite of petitioner's visit to the office of respondent No. 3, the petitioner again renewed his request on 29.08.2005. On 06.09.2005 respondent No. 1 sought from the petitioners certain information. The petitioners submitted this information on 20th September, 2005. Again on 14.11.2005 the petitioners submitted an application, followed up by another application on 01.12.2005, requesting respondent No. 3 to grant necessary registration number. On 15.02.2006 the petitioners received a communication informing them that the title "The Iman Times" had been deblocked and no further correspondence would be entertained. The petitioners were directed to apply afresh to the concerned District Magistrate and to get the title subject to availability.
4. According to the petitioners, the communication was absolutely illegal and gives a go-by to the provisions of Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867. According to the petitioners, duties and powers of Registrar of Newspapers-respondent No. 3 under the Act are purely administrative in nature and upon receiving a copy of declaration from the Magistrate, Respondent No. 3 is duty bound to issue certificate of registration. Abrupt decoding of newspaper is causing substantial loss to the petitioner. The petitioners contend that respondent No. 2 has followed the policy of pick and choose while decoding. The petitioners, therefore, approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 2348 of 2006, which was allowed to be withdrawn on 10th July, 2006 with liberty to apply afresh to District Magistrate for registration.
5. Accordingly, the petitioners again applied on 19.08.2006 seeking clarification and guidance for the purpose of registration. Respondent No. 2 informed the petitioners by letter dated 08.09.2006 that the Additional District Magistrate is empowered to authenticate declaration under the Act. The petitioners, therefore, sought writ of Certiorari for quashing of the communication dated 15.02.2006, whereby respondent No. 3 decoded the title "The Iman Times". The petitioner also sought a writ directing respondent No. 3 to grant registration number to the newspaper 'The Iman Times'.
6. On behalf of respondents No. 1 and 3 reply has been filed contending that the petition is premature in as much as the petitioners have not exhausted remedy available to them before rushing to the Court invoking writ jurisdiction under Constitution of India. According to respondents No. 1 and 3 the declaration filed by the petitioner on 04.01.2003 was incomplete and incorrect as title was allotted to Mr. W.A. Mohammad Hanif, whereas in the declaration names of Mr. Mohammed Wakil and Mohd. Hanif were shown as owners. The name of the printer in column No. 8 of the declaration was shown as Mohd. Khalid. In the beginning of the declaration name of publisher and printer was shown as Mohd. Wakil Mohd. Hanif. Subsequently name of printing press was given as 'SheetalAssociates'. The respondents asked the petitioners vide letter dated 06.09.2005 to complete all the documents. The petitioners did not furnish complete documents. According to the respondents, the petitioner can apply afresh for title if it is still available and denied all adverse allegations against the respondents.
7. This Court by order dated 20.02.2007 sought from respondent No. 3 procedure to be followed for allotment under Press and Registration of Books Act. Accordingly respondent No. 3 filed Guidelines/Instructions for Verification of Title and Guidelines for Registration on 16.03.2007. On behalf of the petitioners vide pursis dated 10th April, 2007 copies of correspondence between the petitioners and respondent No. 3 were filed.
8. We have heard the learned Advocates for petitioners and respondents.
9. The objection as to whether Mohammed Wakil Mohammed Hanif is one person or two persons in column No. 11 of application Annexure-B does not seem to be the true objection in the strict sense, but only arises out of some misgiving occurred due to the manner in which the name "Mohammed Wakil Mohammed Hanif" who is one person, has described himself. Original record of respondent No. 3 was made available for our perusal by the learned Advocate for respondent No. 3. It seems that letters dated 20.09.2005, 14.11.2005 and 01.12.2005 are signed by one Shakil, presumably Mohammed Shakil Rizwy, who is shown as editor of the newspaper. This too should not have led to any serious problem, since the editor had entered into correspondence, presumably on behalf of his Principal-the owner. No rule is shown which prohibits such correspondence. Section 5 of the Press and Registration of Books Act only requires that the printer and publisher of the newspaper shall appear in person before the District Magistrate and make and subscribe declaration as prescribed in the said section, which requirement is complied with. In view of this, it seems to us that the impugned letter came to be issued only because of failure of proper communication and the resultant misunderstandings. Respondent No. 3 could get necessary compliance made or deficiencies removed and process petitioners' request further. All these things have occurred due to lack of professional approach on the part of petitioner and his employees as well as on the part of the respondent Nos. 1 and 3. Respondent No. 3 ought to have raised specific queries/objections and on putting those to the petitioner called upon him to comply/rectify or answer those. Had some such procedure been followed, travel to Court could have been avoided.
10. In view of this, the impugned communication dated 15.02.2006 would ordinarily have to be quashed. However, the petitioner had challenged this very communication in Writ Petition No. 2348 of 2006 which the petitioner withdrew on 10th July, 2006. The order passed therein is reproduced by the petitioner in paragraph 19 of the petition as under:
Heard Mr. Shriniwas Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to apply fresh through the District Magistrate for Registration of title of the Newspaper as per procedure prescribe under the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867. Permission granted. Writ petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.
11. Having withdrawn the petition with liberty to apply afresh to the District Magistrate for registration of the title of the newspaper, it would not be open for the petitioner to again knock the doors of this Court for having the communication dated 15.02.2006 quashed and set aside, without following course which the petitioner has chosen while seeking leave of the Court to withdraw the earlier petition.
12. In view of this, we direct that the petitioner may apply afresh, as he was permitted to do under orders dated 10th July, 2006 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 2348 of 2006, and respondent No. 3 shall consider such application and shall get necessary compliance done or deficiencies removed as the case may be by reopening the application which was closed in view of impugned communication, rather than pushing the petitioner from pillar to post for mere technicalities.
13. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. In the circumstances, parties shall bear their own costs.