All India Small And Medium ... vs Press Council Of India And Ors.
2004 Latest Caselaw 48 Del

JUDGMENT

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.

1. This petition relates to the non-recognition of the petitioner (All India Small and Medium Newspapers Federation, New Delhi) for notification as an association under Section 5(4) of the Press Council Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') for the purposes of constituting the 8th Press Council of India.

2. The petitioner was earlier recognised as an association under the said Act by the Press Council of India. In fact, the petitioner was so recognised since 1982 right up to 2001, i.e., up to the 7th term of the Press Council of India. The present controversy pertains to the 8th term of the Press Council of India (hereinafter referred to as the '8th Press Council of India'). The procedure for notifying associations under Section 5(4) of the said Act was altered and in pursuance of this procedure, the petitioner has been denied recognition on the ground that there already exists another association of the same name which is registered in Kanpur. The other association of Kanpur had also filed a claim for recognition and both the petitioner's claim as well as the claim of the association at Kanpur were rejected.

3.The petitioner's grievance is two-fold. Firstly, it is the petitioner's contention that they had already been recognised as an association under Section 5(4) of the said Act in respect of the earlier terms of the Press Council of India. In fact, the petitioner was so recognised from 1982 onwards till the culmination of the 7th Press Council of India in 2001. On the basis of such recognition, the petitioner had nominated its President, Sardar Harbhajan Singh, as the Member of the 2nd and 3rd Press Councils of India (1982-1985 and 1985-1988) and he was a Member of the said Press Councils. The petitioner wanted to nominate Sardar Harbhajan Singh again in 1997 for the 7th Press Council but the petitioner was not permitted to do so by the respondents claiming that under Section 6(7) of the said Act, since the said Sardar Harbhajan Singh had already been a Member earlier, he could not be renominated. This led to some litigation. Sardar Harbhajan Singh filed a writ petition being CW5203/1997 before this Hon'ble Court challenging this action on the part of the respondents. The same was disposed of by a judgment and/or order dated 18.08.2000 by a learned single Judge of this Court holding that the said Sardar Harbhajan Singh would be entitled to be nominated as, under Section 6(7) of the said Act, the expression used was ''retiring member'' and not ''retired member''. Interpreting the expression in this manner, the learned single Judge held that renomination applied only to two consecutive terms and not to two separate terms interspersed in time. In a Letters Patent Appeal being LPA No.416/2000, the Division Bench by a judgment dated 21.03.2001 reversed the single Judge's decision. Ultimately, the Supreme Court in the case of Harbhajan Singh v. Press Council of India and Ors: 2002 (2) Scale 605, set aside the judgment of the Division Bench and restored that of the learned single Judge. While doing so, the Supreme Court observed as under:-

''16. We are clearly of the opinion that Sub-Section (7) of Section 6 of the Press Council Act must be assigned its ordinary, grammatical and natural meaning as the language is plain and simple. There is no evidence available, either intrinsic or external, to read the word 'retiring' as 'retired'. Nor can the word 're-nomination' be read as nomination for an independent term detached from the previous term of membership or otherwise than in succession. The provision on its plain reading does not disqualify or make ineligible a person from holding the office of a member of the Council for more than two terms in his life. The use of the words 'retiring' as qualifying 'member' coupled with the use of word 're-nomination' clearly suggests that a member is disqualified for being a member for the third term in continuation in view of his having held the office of membership for more than two terms just preceding, one of which terms, the later one, was held on re-nomination. Such an interpretation does not lead to any hardship, inconvenience, injustice, absurdity or anomaly and, therefore, the rule of ordinary and natural meaning being followed cannot be departed from.''

4. The petitioner also made several representations to the Press Council on, inter alia, 30.04.1999 pointing out various irregularities in its functioning. Other representations in similar vein were sent to the Prime Minister on 19.06.2000, to Members of Parliament and Members of the Press Council of India on 30.11.2000 and to the Minister concerned on 12.12.2000 and 08.01.2001. Copies of such representations have been annexed with the writ petition. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the fact that its President, Harbhajan Singh litigated against his being prevented from his nomination and ultimately succeeded therein before the Supreme Court and the fact that the petitioner had made various representations pointing out the irregularties in the functioning of the Press Council of India, had angered the Press Council of India, including its Chairman and other Members. This, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, has led to the action of non-recognition for the purposes of the 8th Press Council as a part of the victimisation and/or bias meted out against the petitioner. The second aspect of the matter is that the petitioner has been denied recognition under Section 5 of the said Act solely on the ground that the other association of Kanpur bears the same name and is a registered society. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that where there were two rival claims, it was incumbent upon the respondents to call both and, after hearing the two, arrive at a decision. This was not done. As such, the principles of natural justice have been violated and, it is no solace that the claim of the other association of Kanpur has also been rejected. In this context, the learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that, in any event, the facts disclose that the claim of the other association of Kanpur was time-barred and incomplete and could not be considered at all. In this view of the matter, the petitioner ought to have been granted recognition as had been the case earlier.

5. The writ petition is resisted by the respondents and in particular the Press Council of India on the ground that the claims of the petitioner and the association of Kanpur were considered in detail in the meeting held on 22.01.2001 wherein the petitioner and the association of Kanpur were denied recognition. The learned counsel for the respondents (Press Council of India) submitted that the battle was between two factions of the organisation known as All India Small and Medium Newspapers Federation.

The petitioner represented the faction headed by Shri Harbhajan Singh, whereas the other faction was the one registered in Kanpur. In the minutes, it was indicated that because of a stay order granted by the Allahabad High Court, the faction headed by S. Harbhajan Singh was granted recognition from 1982 right up to 1997. Another suit was filed on 18.05.1997 by the Delhi faction headed by Sh. Harbhajan Singh in the Ghaziabad Civil Court against the association of Kanpur. The said Court granted an interim stay order to Shri Harbhajan Singh on 22.08.1997 and accordingly, the Press Council of India in its meeting held on 20.11.1997 granted recognition to the petitioner (lead by Shri Harbhajan Singh) for the purposes of reconstitution of the Council for it 7th term. The minutes also record that the said suit was ultimately dismissed on 04.02.1998 and in view of the disputed position, the opinion of the Solicitor General of India was sought by the Press Council of India. The penultimate paragraph of the opinion rendered by him was set out in the minutes indicating that since the interim order no longer survived, the decision of the Press Council dated 20.11.1997 needed to be reviewed. The minutes further record as under:-

''The sub-committee was of the view that the substance of the opinion sought by it from the Solicitor General of India was that the decision of the Council dated November 20, 1997 recognizing the Delhi faction led by Shri Harbhajan Singh needs to be reviewed. In so far as the credentials of the Kanpur faction of All India Small and Medium Newspapers Federation are concerned, despite the Council having addressed a specific letter to the said faction to file the documentary evidence specified in the said letter to establish its claim, no response has been received.

It now appears that a claim has been filed by Shri Harbhajan Singh in the name of All India Small and Medium Newspapers Federation, which bears the same name as the organisation which is registered in Kanpur and which is still in existence. This organisation, it is apparent, he has got registered in 1997. Apart from the fact that there is no document to prove its existence for the last six years, the question posed by the sub-committee for the decision of the Council therefore is : Does the Societies Registration Act, 1860 envisage the registration of an organization with the same name in a different State when the earlier organisation is still in existence?

It may be mentioned that a letter dated November 7, 2000 followed by reminder was written by the Secretariat of the Council to the Registrar of Societies, Delhi seeking clarification on this aspect of the matter to which there has been no response.

In view of the aforesaid the sub-committee recommends to the Council to reject the claims of both the factions of this Federation.''

6. Therefore, according to learned counsel for the respondents, the matter had been fully considered and even a letter was written to the Registrar of Societies on 07.11.2000 requiring the Registrar to give answers to the following questions:-

''The Council is to be reconstituted for the VIIIth term with effect from March 2001. In pursuance of this, we require the following information urgently:

1. Whether two organisations with the same name can be registered separately in two different states under the Societies Registration Act, 1860?

2. Whether an organisation with a name already registered in another state can be registered in Delhi as a separate entity?

3.Whether All India Small and Medium Newspapers Federation (AISMNF), Delhi which claims to have been registered with you vide no. S/31908 of 97 was eligible to be registered when another faction/body of the same name claims to have been registered in U.P since 1968 vide registration no.13/1968-69, renewal no. K-141/98-99 (copies attached)?

We request you to kindly enlighten us on this matter in detail. Your reply at the earliest will be highly appreciated.''

The Registrar in response gave his answers as under:-

''Please refer to your letter No.19/1/2000-PCI dated 7.11.2000. In this regard I wish to inform you that under the provisions of Societies Registration Act and Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 and as per prevalent practice two societies having the same name cannot be registered in Delhi however, as regards the provisions followed by other States the Govt. of Delhi (Industries Department) cannot offer any comments on behalf of these States.

As regards the query that whether an organization with a name already registered in other State can be registered in Delhi as a separate entity is concerned, it is informed that under the existing provisions if a society has been registered in a State then the same society cannot be registered in Delhi as a separate entity. As far as the registration of All India Small and Medium Newspapers Federation with Delhi Government vide No. S/31908 of 1997 is concerned, it is a fact that this society has been registered with the Registrar of Societies, Delhi Government however, if this society was already registered vide registration No.13/98-99 wrongly No.K-149/98-99 then prior to the registration the society was required to bring these facts to the notice of Registrar's office so that appropriate necessary action while processing the case could be taken.

In addition to the above stated position, if your office needs any clarification then we will extend all possible assistance in this regard.''

7. Finally, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Press Council which functions as a qasi-judicial body has considered the cases of the petitioner as well as the other association of Kanpur and after considering all the factors including the reply of Registrar of Societies, came to the conclusion that neither the petitioner nor the other association of Kanpur were entitled for recognition. There is no error in the decision making process and no principles of natural justice have been violated and, accordingly, the writ petition ought to be dismissed.

8. To appreciate the controversy, it would be necessary to examine the provisions of the said Act Along with the factual position. Section 5 of the said Act provides for the composition of the Council. Section 5(1) stipulates that the Press Council of India shall consist of a Chairman and 28 other Members. Sub-Section 2 of Section 5 provides the manner in which the Chairman should be appointed. The other Members are to be nominated in terms of Section 5(3) . In this case, we are concerned with Section 5(3)(b) of the said Act which reads as under:-

''(b)six shall be nominated in accordance with such procedure as may be prescribed from among persons who own or carry on the business of management of newspapers, so, however, that there shall be two representatives from each of the categories of big newspapers, medium newspapers and small newspapers.''

From this provision, it is abundantly clear that six persons are to be nominated in accordance with the prescribed procedure in such a manner that there shall be two representatives from each of the categories of big newspapers, medium newspapers and small newspapers. Section 5(4) stipulates that before making any nomination, inter alia, under clause 'b' of sub-Section 3 of Section 5, the retiring chairman of the previous Council shall, in the prescribed manner, invite panels of names comprising twice he number of members to be nominated from such associations of persons of the categories referred to, inter alia, in clause 'b' as may be notified by the Council. Sub-Section 5 provides that the Central Government shall notify the names of persons nominated as members under sub-Section (3) in the Official Gazette and every such nomination shall take effect from the date on which it is notified. In view of the provisions of Section 5(4) of the said Act, the Press Council of India took out a notice on 1?.06.2000 in, inter alia, the Hindustan Times, Delhi with regard to the reconstitution of the Press Council of India. The said notice was essentially a notice for filing of claims which is set out hereinbelow:-

''PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA

RECONSTITUTION OF PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA

NOTICE FILING OF CLAIMS

The three-year term of the present members of the Press Council of India expire on March 27, 2001. The Council is to be reconstituted with effect from March 28, 2001. Of its 28 members, excluding the Chairman, twenty have to be nominated in accordance with the procedure set out in Press Council (Procedure for Nomination of Members) Rules 1978 as amended on June 18, 1999 read with Section 5 of the Press Council Act, 1978. Section 5(4) of the Press Council Act, 1978, stipulates that before making any nomination of thirteen working journalists i.e. six editors, seven non-editors and of six from among persons who own or carry on the business of management of newspapers and of one from among persons who manage news agencies under clause (a), clause (b) or clause (c) of Section 5(3) of the Act, respectively, the retiring Chairman of the Council shall in keeping with the procedure prescribed in the said Act and the rules, invite panels of names comprising twice the number of members to be nominated FROM SUCH ASSOCIATIONS OF PERSONS OF THE AFORESAID CATEGORIES AS MAY BE NOTIFIED IN THIS BEHALF BY THE COUNCIL.

For the reconstitution of the Press Council of India for its eighth term with effect from March 28, 2001, the Press Council therefore hereby invites national level registered associations of the following categories to file their respective claims for notification (or for renotification of those who had been notified in 1997), by the Press Council under sub-section (4) of Section 5 of the Press Council Act, 1978, as representative associations having All India character with the minimum of six years existence and being registered for not less than six months under the relevant laws.

Vide clause (a) of S.5(3):

i) Associations of the category of editors

ii) Associations of the category of working journalists other than editors.

Vide Clause (b) of S.5(3):

iii) Associations of persons who own or carry on the business or management of big, medium and small newspapers.

Vide clause (c) of S.5(3):

iv) Associations of persons who manage news agencies or news agencies individually covered within the ambit of the Working Journalist Act and Other Newspaper Employees Conditions of Service and Misc. Provision Act, 1955 (excluding feature and non wire agencies) in the event of there being no association of new agencies.

Such associations of the aforesaid categories as have been in existence for at least six years and are registered under relevant laws of the country for at least six months prior to last date of filing the claims and who would like to stake their claim in this behalf and who are able to satisfy the Council as to their active existence and representative character or a national basis of the said category i.e. having bonafide membership of persons belonging to the claimant category in at least nine States Union Territories and such membership of the claimant association being not confined to any particular group on regional or language basis etc. within the specified category, may file their claims with the Chairman, Press Council of India, Faridkot House (Gr. Floor) Copernicus Marg, New Delhi-110001, so as to reach him on or before July 15, 2000. The claims should be accompanied by supportive documents showing that the organisation is eligible according to the above criteria to represent anyone of the categories set out above and also to establish that it is qualified to represent the category under which it is staking its claim. The claim should further be supported by (a) copy of the constitution of the association (b) copy of Registration certificate, with up to date renewal wherever applicable, of the claimant body, (c) a complete list of its members representing the category under which the claim is being filed with complete particulars like designation in the newspapers with which they are associated and postal address of the members and the newspaper concerned and the circulation of newspaper specifically indicating whether any member is also a member of any other parallel body and (d) the latest audited accounts establishing the annual membership fee received from its members (e) documents establishing active existence of the body, including minutes of the General Body meetings for the last three years.

The organisation may specify the category under which they are staking their claim. The President/Secretary/authorised signatory to the association/organisation shall make and subscribe to a declaration sworn before the Notary Public, verifying that the facts stated in the claim application and the particulars attached thereto are true to the best of his/her knowledge and belief and information. The Press Council of India will be within its right to call for such additional information as might be considered necessary. Any claim not in conformity with the above is liable to be rejected.

The organisations notified for the current term of the Press Council (1998-2001) may also take note of this notification and file fresh claim applications. No claim made after July 15, 2000 will be entertained for notification.''

9. The aforesaid notice was an invitation to the national level registered associations of the categories mentioned therein to file their respective claims for notification or for renotification of those who had been notified in 1997 by the Press Council under Section 5(4) of the said Act as representative associations having an All India character with the minimum of six years existence and being registered for not less than six months under the relevant laws. The petitioner, being qualified for making such a claim, filed its claim on 08.07.2000 under Section 5(3)(b). The claim was in time as the last date for filing of claims in response to the notice was 15.07.2000. It is pertinent to note that the notice also made it mandatory for any claimant organisation/association to file a declaration to the effect indicated in the notice. It was made abundantly clear in the notice itself that any claim not in conformity with the above would be liable to be rejected. The petitioner, sensing that the association at Kanpur had perhaps also filed a claim sending letter dated 02.08.2000 to the Secretary, Press Council of India requesting for a list of the organisations who had staked their claims for the Press Council of India which was to be reconstituted.

It is the petitioner's contention that on 03.08.2000, it received a list of 21 organisations which had filed claims under Section 5(3) (a) and (b) of the said Act. That list is Annexure P-6 at pages 130 and 131 of the Paper Book. The petitioner has been shown as a claimant at S.No. 19 under the category of small and medium newspapers. The name of the rival association of Kanpur does not figure in this list. There is, however, another list of 22 claimants which has been enclosed with the letter of the Press Council of India dated 03.10.2000 addressed to one Prof. (Dr) Raj Baldev, Editor, International Reporter, New Delhi. This list which is part of Annexure P-11 and is at pages 140-141 of the Paper Book also shows the petitioner at the same S. No.19 but includes the rival association of Kanpur at S.No.20. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the earlier list at Annexure P-6 and this list (Annexure P-11) on comparison clearly indicate that they have been typed out using the same typewrite indicating that they originated from the same source. If the Press Council of India claims the latter list (Annexure P-11) to be prepared by them, then obviously the first list also originated from the Press Council of India. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, if this be the position, then the second list (Annexure P-11) has been manipulated so as to include the name of the rival association of Kanpur which did not find place in the list which was given to it on 03.08.2000. In any event, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it has been admitted by the respondents in paragraph 11 of their counter-affidavit on preliminary facts that the claim of the Kanpur organisation was received by the respondents on 25.07.2000 although it was dated 14.07.2000. Admittedly, therefore, the claim was received after 15.07.2000 which was the last date. As such, such claim ought not to have been entertained at all. Furthermore, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the list (Annexure P-11) which includes the name of the rival association of Kanpur indicates in respect of such association that the remark in the column where the name of the persons who filed the declaration was to be given, bears the remark ''declaration not received. This also indicates that even as late as 03.10.2001 the declaration required under the notice dated 12.06.2000 had not been supplied by the rival association of Kanpur. Therefore, on this ground also, their claim ought to have been summarily rejected Learned counsel for the petitioner also pointed to the specific mention in the minutes of the meeting of 24.01.2001 to the following effect:-

''In so far as the credentials of the Kanpur faction of All India Small and Medium Newspapers Federation are concerned, despite the Council having addressed a specific letter to the said faction to file the documentary evidence specified in the said letter to establish its claim, no response has been received.''

10. Thus, it appears that the rival association of Kanpur did not file its claim in time, did not file any declaration and did not respond to specific letters written by the Press Council of India to file documentary evidence to establish its purported claim. Yet, the Press Council of India entertained the claim of the rival association of Kanpur and used the same to reject the claim of the petitioner. In fact, the statement contained in the minutes qua the rival association of Kanpur to the effect that the same is registered in Kanpur and is ''still in existence'' is merely the ipse dixit of the committee and not borne out by any facts or evidence. At the same time, while the Committee recognised the ''existence'' of the rival association of Kanpur, it filled to recognise the existence of the petitioner when the petitioner had filed its registration certificate and had been recognised by the Press Council of India since 1982. It is a different matter to say that such recognition was granted due to interim orders. The fact remains that the petitioner was in existence. The conclusion that there is no document to prove the existence of the petitioner for the last six years is clearly without any foundation or basis. Insofar as the letter of the Registrar of Societies is concerned, it is abundantly clear that the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 has no application at all and there is no bar for a society of a particular name in a State being prohibited for registration with the same name in another State.

11. In this view of the matter, the decision of the Press Council of India in not recognising the petitioner under Section 5(3)(b) of the said Act is liable to be set aside and, accordingly, the notification dated 25.01.2001 and the impugned letter dated 16.02.2001 to this effect and to this extent are set aside. The parties are left to bear their respective costs.