Anoop Gupta vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 20030 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:50680-DB
 
Court No. - 8
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5140 of 2022
 

 
Petitioner :- Anoop Gupta
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Info. Govt. U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko. And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Bhushan Pandey,Asim Kumar Singh,Shailendra Kumar Shukla
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.S.G.I.
 

 
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

Petitioner intends to publish a magazine for which he had applied for necessary permission from the competent authority, which was rejected by the District Magistrate Lucknow vide order dated 20.07.2022.

Petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing Writ C No. 10007 of 2015 which was allowed on 27.10.2015 and the notice issued to the petitioner by the City Magistrate contemplating action under Section 8B of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act 1867') was quashed. Operative portion of the previous order of this Court reads as under:-

"Consequently, we are of the opinion that once the Magistrate himself had not formed the opinion on the basis of any material so as to propose an action then in that event the response expected from the petitioner would be only on the factual aspects of the complaint and not on the proposed action. This therefore vitiates the entire action as it is not in accordance with Section 8B of the 1867 Act.

Having recorded the aforesaid finding, we are clearly of the opinion that the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner comes to his aid. The notice therefore being defective, the orders passed by the City Magistrate - Respondent No. 5 impugned herein dated 5th October, 2015 cannot be sustained.

In view of the aforesaid findings recorded, we do not propose to relegate the petitioner to the alternative remedy of filing an appeal.

Learned Additional Advocate General contends that the State does not propose to file any counter affidavit at this stage and the matter can be revisited by the competent magistrate by complying with the provisions of Section 8B. Sri S.B. Pandey for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 also does not propose to file any counter affidavit at this stage.

In the aforesaid circumstances, we do not find it necessary to issue any notices to the respondent nos. 6 to 9 at this stage and the matter can be dealt with by the competent authority in the light of the observations made hereinabove.

Consequently, we allow the petition and quash the order dated 5th October, 2015.

It shall be open to the competent authority to proceed in accordance with law and take appropriate action if it is permissible in the light of the provisions of 1867 Act and the observations made hereinabove."

Thereafter, a fresh notice has been issued to the petitioner on 27.04.2016 requiring the petitioner to furnish various details. The petitioner has submitted reply whereafter the District Magistrate, Lucknow vide his order impugned dated 20.07.2022 has cancelled the declaration made by the petitioner on 01.06.2018, apart from cancelling the previous declarations made on 08.11.2012 & 08.04.2015.

The petitioner claims to be publishing a magazine in the name of 'Drishtant' in which various articles in public interest were being published.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that order impugned is wholly unsustainable in as much as none of the conditions stipulated under Section 8B of the Act,1867 are shown to exist nor any satisfaction or finding has been recorded as to which of the conditions specified under Section 8 of the Act has been violated. Submission is that the rejection of petitioner's claim is wholly arbitrary.

Section 5 of the Act, 1867 provides the Rules relating to publication of newspaper. Sub-Rule 3 of Section 5 is relevant for the present controversy and is reproduced hereinafter:-

"[(3) ] As often as the place of printing or publication is changed, a new declaration shall be necessary: [Provided that where the change is for a period not exceeding thirty days and the place of printing or publication after the change is within the local jurisdiction of the Magistrate referred to in rule (2), no new declaration shall be necessary if?

(a) a statement relating to the change is furnished to the said Magistrate within twenty-four hours thereof; and

(b) the printer or publisher or the printer and publisher of the newspaper continues to be the same.]"

According to the respondents, the Press where the magazine itself was being printed has undergone a change in respect of which proper declaration has not been made by the petitioner.

Petitioner in response submits that a fresh declaration has been made on 01.06.2018 specifying the address of the Printing Press where the magazine is being printed. Such information has also been given to the Central Government for issuance of certificate of registration by the Office of the Registrar, Newspaper of India. Such registration has also been granted by the Registrar of Newspaper.

It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that while rejecting the request of the petitioner, the District Magistrate had not applied his mind to the requirement of Section 8B of the Act, 1867, which renders the order impugned bad in law.

Section 8B of the Act, 1867 reads as under:-

"8B. Cancellation of declaration.?If, on an application made to him by the Press Registrar or any other person or otherwise, the Magistrate empowered to authenticate a declaration under this Act, is of opinion that any declaration made in respect of a newspaper should be cancelled, he may, after giving the person concerned an opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken, hold an inquiry into the matter and if, after considering the cause, if any, shown by such person and after giving him an opportunity of being heard, he is satisfied that?

(i) the newspaper, in respect of which the declaration has been made is being published in contravention of the provisions of this Act or rules made thereunder; or

(ii) the newspaper mentioned in the declaration bears a title which is the same as, or similar to, that of any other newspaper published either in the same language or in the same State; or

(iii) the printer or publisher has ceased to be the printer or publisher of the newspaper mentioned in such declaration; or

(iv) the declaration was made on false representation or on the concealment of any material fact or in respect of a periodical work which is not a newspaper; the Magistrate may, by order, cancel the declaration and shall forward as soon as possible a copy of the order to the person making or subscribing the declaration and also to the Press Registrar."

The aforesaid Section clearly provides the grounds on which the declaration made can be cancelled by the authorities.

We have perused the order impugned which does not contain any satisfaction with regard to the existence of any of four conditions which are mandatory to exist for justifying the order of cancellation of declaration. Since no satisfaction has been recorded by the Competent Authority with regard to existence of conditions justifying invocation of jurisdiction under Section 8B of the Act 1867, as such the order impugned cannot be sustained.

The writ petition consequently succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 20.07.2022 is quashed.

The District Magistrate, Lucknow is directed to revisit the issue in accordance with law, keeping in mind the observations made hereinabove.

Order Date :- 1.8.2023

S. Kumar