Priyanka Gupta & Others vs Union Of India & Others
2009 Latest Caselaw 4695 Del

      *       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

      +                  W. P. ( C ) No. 4807/2007

      %                        Date of decision : 18th November, 2009.

      PRIYANKA GUPTA & OTHERS                       .... Petitioners
                          Through Mr. Ali Naqvi, Mr.Meehir Ranjan,
                                     Advocates for petitioner no.2.

                          Versus

      UOI & OTHERS                               .... Respondents
                                     Through     Mr.   Mukesh     Anand,
                                     Mr.RCS     Bhadaria,     Mr.Shailesh
                                     Tiwari, advocates for R.1-2.
                                     Mr.Rajiv Nayyar, Sr.Advocate with
                                     Mr.Dhruv Diwan, Mr.Monark Gahlot,
                                     advocates for R-4.

      CORAM :
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

                                   ORDER

Learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 has raised preliminary

objection and has submitted that the impugned authentication of

declarations dated 5th April, 2006 and 10th April, 2006 made by

Collector & Dist. Magistrate, Indore, on the basis of which the Registrar

of Newspapers, New Delhi has granted Certificate of Registration, can

be made subject matter of an application under Section 8B of the Press

and Registration of Books Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the Act,

for short). It is further submitted that any order passed under Section

8B of the Act is appealable under Section 8C of the Act.

WPC No.4807/2007 Page 1

2. Section 8B and 8C of the Act read 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 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.

8C. Appeal.

(1) Any person aggrieved by an order of a Magistrate refusing to authenticate a declaration under Section 6 or canceling a declaration under section 8B may, within sixty days from the date on which such order is communicated to him, prefer an appeal to the appellate Board to be called the Press and Registration Appellate Board [consisting of a Chairman and another member to be nominated by

WPC No.4807/2007 Page 2 the Press Council of India, established under section 4 of the Press Council Act, 1978 (37 of 1978), from among its members].

Provided that the Appellate Board may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal in time.

(2) On receipt of an appeal under this section, the Appellate Board may, after calling for the records from the Magistrate and; after making such further inquiries as it thinks fit, confirm, modify or set aside the order appealed against.

(3) Subject to the provisions contained in sub- section(2) the appellate Board may, by order, regulate its practice and procedure.

(4) The decision of the Appellate Board shall be final."

3. Section 8B of the Act is a comprehensive provision which entitles

the Press Registrars or any other person to move an application before

a Magistrate who is empowered to authenticate a declaration to cancel

a declaration already granted if any of the conditions mentioned in

Section 8B of the Act are satisfied. In fact, during the course of

hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner nos.1 and 2 had relied upon

Clauses (i) and (iii) read with proviso to Section 6 of the Act and had

submitted that declaration granted by respondent no. 3 should be

cancelled or revoked. In these circumstances, it is clear that the

petitioners have an efficacious alternative remedy by way of an

application for cancellation of declaration under Section 8B of the Act.

There is no justification or reason given in the present Writ Petition

WPC No.4807/2007 Page 3 why the equally efficacious alternative remedy cannot be invoked by

the petitioners.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner nos.1 and 2 had submitted that

respondent no. 3 in his affidavit filed in this Court has stated that while

authenticating a declaration under Section 6 of the Act they merely put

a stamp of approval without conducting any enquiry. Learned counsel

for the petitioners submitted that the Registrar of Newspaper-

respondent no. 2 was aware of the disputes between the petitioner

and the respondent no. 4 in respect for the name Dainik Jagran and he

has wrongly issued the said certificate. The first contention can be

raised by the petitioners before respondent no. 3, under Section 8B of

the Act. The respondent no. 3 has power to cancel the declaration

granted by him. Once a declaration granted under Section 8B of the

Act is cancelled, registration of certificate also stands cancelled

automatically. In view of the said position even the second contention

does not compel this Court to entertain the present Writ Petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners have admitted that they have

already filed a suit in Delhi High Court in which an application under

Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is

pending. In the said application, the petitioners have made a prayer

that respondent no. 4 should be restrained from publishing the

newspaper `Dainik Jagran`.

6. In view of the alternative remedy available to the petitioners, I

am not inclined to entertain the present Writ Petition.

WPC No.4807/2007 Page 4

7. Petitioners are at liberty to file an application under Section 8B

of the Act seeking cancellation of declaration. This Court has not

expressed any opinion on merit of the contentions raised by the parties

or on the question of declaration granted and whether or not

declaration should be cancelled or not cancelled. Parties will be at

liberty to raise the said contentions under Sections 8B/8C of the Act.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

NOVEMBER 18, 2009.

P




      WPC No.4807/2007                                              Page 5