Bombay High Court
Umashankar S/O Prahlad Namdeo vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ... on 3 January, 2022
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar, Pushpa V. Ganediwala
29-WP-516-2021.odt 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 516 OF 2021
Shri Umashankar s/o Prahlad Namdeo,
aged about 46 years, Occ. Editor,
Nagpur Samachar Newspaper (RNI No. MAH/BIL/2006-18717),
Office Address : 7, Kamal Keshav Plaza,
Ramdaspeth, Nagpur - 440010.
...PETITIONER
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Information and Public Relations Department,
Govt. of Maharashtra, Mantralay, Ground Floor,
Mumbai - 400032.
2. Shri Dilip Pandharpatte,
Director General, Information and Public Relations Department,
Govt. of Maharashtra, Mantralay, Ground Floor,
Mumbai - 400032.
3. Shri Hemraj Kashinath Bagul,
Director, Information and Public Relations,
Nagpur Division Commissioner Building,
Old Secretariat, Civil Lines, Nagpur - 440001.
4. The District Information Officer,
3rd Floor, Administrative Building - 1,
Civil Lines, Nagpur - 440001.
5. Shri Mangesh B. Warkad,
The Examiner of Books and Publications,
Old Customs House, 2nd Floor,
Fort Mumbai - 400001.
6. Smt. Shailaja Dandade Wagh,
Assistant Director o/o Director,
Information and Public Relations,
Nagpur Division Commissioner Building,
Old Secretariat, Civil Lines, Nagpur - 440001.
Names of respondent Nos. 2, 3, 5 & 6 are
deleted as per Court's order dated 09/02/2021.
...RESPONDENTS
29-WP-516-2021.odt 2
Mr. D.B. Walthare, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mrs. K.R. Deshpande, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 and 4.
CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR AND
PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, JJ.
DATED : JANUARY 03, 2022
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, J.) :
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard
finally with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the
parties.
2. The challenge in the present Writ Petition is to the
order dated 10/09/2020 passed by respondent No.5 - the
Examiner of Books and Publications, whereby it has been
informed to the petitioner that the petitioner's Evening Daily
Newspaper - Nagpur Samachar, Nagpur, has been removed
from the list of authorized newspapers, which are permitted for
publishing the Government approved advertisements, i.e.,
classified advertisements as defined in the Government
Resolution dated 08/08/2001.
3. Mr. Walthare, learned counsel for the petitioner,
challenges the impugned order on two grounds; firstly,
29-WP-516-2021.odt 3
respondent No.5 is not competent to pass the impugned order,
and secondly, the reply to the show cause notice issued to the
petitioner has not been considered by the Authority while
passing the impugned order.
In support of his submissions, the learned counsel
relied on the Government Resolution dated 20/12/2018, which
is with regard to the Government Message Distribution
Guidelines - 2018, whereby the Rules have been approved with
effect from 01/01/2019. As per clause 4.3.11 of the said GR,
the power to remove the recognition of the newspaper is given
to the Director General, Information and Public Relation
Department.
4. Mrs. Deshpande, learned A.G.P., filed reply-affidavit
on behalf of respondent No.1, thereby opposed the petition,
and submitted that after considering the reply of the petitioner,
so also under the directions of respondent No.2 - Director
General, Information and Public Relations Department,
respondent No.5 passed the impugned order.
29-WP-516-2021.odt 4
5. We have considered the submissions put forth on
behalf of both the sides and perused the record.
6. At the outset, as per clause 4.3.11 of the aforesaid
Government Resolution, the Director General is the Competent
Authority to remove the recognition of any newspaper for the
reasons as mentioned in the aforesaid guidelines after giving
an opportunity of hearing to the management of the concerned
newspaper.
7. A perusal of the impugned order dated
10/09/2020, at once, would reflect that the impugned order
has been passed by respondent No.5 - the Examiner of Books
and Publications, and not by respondent No.2 - Director
General, Information and Public Relations Department. The
respondent No.2 had no jurisdiction to take any decision in the
matter in view of clause 4.3.11. The impugned order does not
mention that the same has been passed under the directions of
respondent No.2 - Director General, Information and Public
Relations Department. Moreover, although the impugned order
reflects that the explanation of the petitioner was called vide
29-WP-516-2021.odt 5
office letter dated 22/06/2020 regarding the irregularity of the
petitioner's newspaper, the points raised in the explanation by
the petitioner were not considered while passing the impugned
order. Similarly, the further reply dated 29/06/2020 has also
not been considered while passing the impugned order. In our
view, the impugned order came to be passed without
jurisdiction and without following the due process of law.
8. Considering the aforesaid lacuna in the impugned
order, in our considered opinion, the same is liable to be
quashed and set-aside. Hence, we pass the following order :
ORDER
i. The order dated 10/09/2020 passed by respondent
No.5 is set-aside. It is open for the respondents to take
appropriate action if so advised in terms of the Government
Resolution dated 20/12/2018 and especially clause 4.3.11. If
any fresh action is taken, the Authority shall give due
opportunity to the petitioner and consider the entire material
on record. It is made clear that we have not examined the
grounds on which the impugned order has been passed. If
respondent No.2 proposes to take any fresh action, the same
shall be done expeditiously and preferably within a period of
four months from today.
ii. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No
order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
******
Sumit
Digitally signed bySUMIT CHETAN
AGRAWAL
Signing Date:06.01.2022 13:20
