Db Corp Ltd. vs Registrar Of Newspapers For India
2010 Latest Caselaw 4107 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+     LPA No.631/2010

DB CORP LTD.                       .....Appellant through
                                   Mr.Mukul Rohtagi, Sr. Adv.,
                                   Mr.Vivek Tankha, Sr. Adv.,
                                   Mr.N.K. Kaul, Sr. Adv. with
                                   Mr.Divyakant Lahoti,
                                   Mr.Joydeep Mazumdar,
                                   Mr.Sidharth Datta,
                                   Mr.Kumar Kartikay,
                                   Mr.Aasheem Chandra,
                                   Mr.Siddharth Singhla,
                                   Mr.Vinod Kumar &
                                   Mr.Bobby Chandok, Advs.

                 versus

REGISTRAR OF NEWSPAPERS            .....Respondent through
FOR INDIA                          Mr.Rajeev Nayyar, Sr. Adv.,
                                   Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv.
                                   with Mr. Mayank Mishra &
                                   Mr.Chetan Chopra, Advs. for
                                   Respondent No.3

%                       Date of Hearing : August 31, 2010

                        Date of Decision : September 07, 2010

      CORAM:
*     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAMAJIT SEN
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
      1. Whether reporters of local papers may be
         allowed to see the Judgment?
      2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
      3. Whether the Judgment should be reported
         in the Digest?

VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.

1. This Appeal assail the Order of the learned Single Judge

passed on 27.8.2010 granting the stay of the Order dated

17.8.2010 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar Sub

Division Office, Ranchi, Jharkhand authenticating the

Declaration made on behalf of the Appellant under Section 6 of

the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 (PRB Act for

short) and all further steps consequent thereto, including the

publication of Dainik Bhaskar in Ranchi shall be stayed. It has

been argued by Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, learned Senior Counsel for

the Appellant, that the learned Single Judge had fallen into error

by entertaining applications seeking stay in an already disposed

Writ Petition. The Writ Petition had earlier been disposed of by

Orders dated 28.7.2010, the salient part of which reads as

follows:-

7. Dr. A.M. Singhvi, learned Senior counsel appearing for Respondent No. 3 raised an objection to the maintainability of the writ petition on the following grounds:

(i) As of today, pursuant to the application made by the Respondent No.3 to the RNI at Ranchi on 4th February 2010, no order has yet been passed under Section 6 of the PRB Act and, therefore, the writ petition is itself premature.

(ii) In view of the fact that no order has been passed under Section 6 of the PRB Act as yet, the occasion to file objections under Section 8B PRB Act did not arise.

(iii) Consequently, the impugned communication dated 30th June 2010 from the RNI to the Sub-

Divisional Officer, Ranchi is of no consequence

because the need for seeking such information and providing such information has not arisen as yet.

(iv) It will be open to the Petitioner to seek such appropriate remedies as are provided under the PRB Act after the Magistrate has passed necessary orders under Section 6 of the PRB Act on the application of Respondent No. 3.

8. In view of the above submissions of Dr. Singhvi, this Court proceeds on the basis that as of today no order has been passed by the Magistrate under Section 6 of the PRB Act. Therefore, the occasion for the Petitioner to file objections under Section 8B and the consequent impugned communication dated 30th June 2010 from the RNI to the SDO, Ranchi which is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition, did not arise and, is therefore, of no consequence.

9. It is clarified that as and when an order is passed by the Magistrate under Section 6 of the PRB Act, it will be open to the Petitioner, if aggrieved, to seek such appropriate remedies as are available to him in terms of the PRB Act.

10. The writ petition and the pending applications are disposed of in the above terms.

2. Thereafter, the Petitioner had filed two applications

bearing CM No.10452/2010, dated 5.8.2010, praying for

recalling of the aforementioned Orders dated 28.7.2010 so that

the Writ Petition should be disposed of on merits; and for

restraining the publication of the Newspaper titled Dainik

Bhaskar in Ranchi, Jharkhand. CM No.11352/2010, dated

20.8.2010, also prayed for restraining the Appellant from

publishing the Newspaper Dainik Bhaskar from Ranchi. Both

these applications have been allowed by the learned Single

Judge after recalling his earlier Orders dated 28.7.2010 in

which he had disposed off the Writ Petition.

3. It seems to us that the learned Single Judge ought not to

have recalled Orders passed on 28.7.2010 disposing off Writ

Petition on the asking of the Respondent by means of the

aforementioned two applications. Reliance has been placed on

paragraph 7 of those Orders positing that the Appellant before

us had made a concession to the effect that the communication

dated 30.6.2010 from the Registrar of Newspapers for India

(RNI) to the Sub Divisional Officer, Ranchi would not be acted

upon. We do not find any concession of the nature argued by

Mr. Rajeev Nayyar, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent.

As we see it, the defence to the Writ Petition was predicated

on Sections 5, 6, 8B and 8C of the PRB Act to contend that the

Writ Petition ought not to be entertained till the Sub Divisional

Officer had authenticated the subject Declaration. In the event,

the Authentication made on behalf of the Appellant under

Section 5 was granted by the Sub Divisional Officer, Ranchi on

17.8.2010. The Writ Petitioner/Applicant/Respondent had

approached the Writ Court on the foundation of the said

communication dated 30.6.2010 from the Office of RNI to the

Sub Divisional Officer, Ranchi, Jharkhand.

4. On a plain reading of the Orders dated 28.7.2010, there

was insufficient cause to revisit the said Orders. This is solely

for the reason that this communication merely advises the Sub

Divisional Officer, Ranchi; whereas what facially engaged by the

learned Single Judge while disposing off the two applications

was the Authentication Order passed under Section 6 of PRB

Act. The learned Single Judge appears to have harboured the

impression that the Appellant had hoodwinked the Court and

presented it with a fait accompli, leaving the Writ Petitioner

with no remedy. We are unable to subscribe to this view not

merely because had the Authentication been the focal point of

dispute, this High Court may have declined to exercise its

extraordinary jurisdiction, leaving this task to the High Court of

Jharkhand. However, the matter has been argued threadbare

before us and we think it will be a gross waste of judicial time if

we base our Orders only on legal punctilio and set aside the

impugned Order, leaving the option open to the Respondent to

file a fresh writ petition to argue the same contentions raised

before us. We say this because we have heard arguments on

both sides which effectively presage what would be argued if a

fresh writ petition were to be filed. We have made this stance of

ours clear to learned Senior Counsel for the parties during the

hearings before us.

5. It is apposite to note that the approach of the learned

Single Judge in the initial Order dated 28.7.2010 is similar to

that adopted by him while passing Orders dated 25.8.2010 in

WP(C) No.9016/2008. Respondent No.3 had challenged before

this Court the Authentication of another Declaration made by

the Appellant with respect to the publication of Dainik Bhaskar

in Dehradun, Uttarakhand. That Writ Petition was also disposed

off by leaving it open to the Respondent to challenge the

Authentication under Section 8B of the PRB Act. We find that it

was the consistent view of the learned Single Judge. This only

accentuates our opinion that the learned Single Judge should

have desisted from reentering upon the controversy, especially

since remedial action was available to the Writ

Petitioner/Respondent to have assailed that Order before the

Division Bench. It is trite that the Court will abjure from

virtually reversing its Orders by means of an application

purporting to seek a Modification or a Review. Suchlike

applications should be confined to correction of errors apparent

on the face of the record.

6. We shall now briefly narrate the sequence of events which

have created the present controversy. An application for

Title Verification dated 5.1.2010 was filed by the Appellant

before the Sub Divisional Officer, Ranchi in respect of Dainik

Bhaskar for proposed publication in Hindi in Ranchi, Jharkhand.

This led to the letter dated 4.2.2010 from the Sub Divisional

Officer, Ranchi, Jharkhand to the RNI requesting him to take

further action on the application for Title Verification dated

5.1.2010. The RNI thereupon issued a Verification dated

15.2.2010 in favour of the Appellant in respect of Dainik

Bhaskar, Hindi, proposed to be published in Ranchi, Jharkhand.

After an unexplained lull of activity on the part of the

Respondent, he eventually addressed a letter dated 13.5.2010 to

the Sub Divisional Officer, Ranchi stating, inter alia, that - ―I

would like to place on record that my consent, as a co-owner of

the title, has not been obtained and as such any registration of

the title in favour of D.B. Corp. Ltd. would be in contravention of

the provisions of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867‖.

The Respondent also alluded to the Judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.4782/1996 directing that the

parties stood relegated to their respective positions as obtaining

on 26.9.1992. Thereupon, a letter was issued by the RNI on

18.6.2004 containing the following Table:-

S.No. Place of publication Name of the Owner

1. Gwalior M/s Bhaskar Publication & Allied Industry, Gwalior.

2.       Indore                    M/s Bhaskar Graphic & Printing
                                   Arts Pvt. Ltd. Indore.
3.       Jhansi                    Shri Sanjay Aggarwal
4.       Jabalpur                  Shri B.D. Aggarwal
5.       Bhopal                    M/s Writers & Publishers Limited,
                                   Bhopal.

7. It would be appropriate to immediately mention that it is

not in dispute that the Respondent is publishing Dainik Bhaskar

only in Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh; he has also filed for

Authentication under Section 6 in respect of the same paper for

Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida. It is apparent that the

Respondent's activity is restricted to the state of Uttar Pradesh.

It is further not disputed that the Appellant is already publishing

daily newspaper titled Dainik Bhaskar from the following places,

as per the Table below. In addition, publication in Jamshedpur

and Dhanbad has also been permitted very recently.

Name         of     Nature    of   Language          Place of Publish
Newspaper           Publication
Dainik Bhaskar      Daily          Hindi             Bhopal
Dainik Bhaskar      Daily          Hindi             Sagar
Dainik Bhaskar      Daily          Hindi             Indore
Dainik Bhaskar      Daily          Hindi             Ujjain
Dainik Bhaskar      Daily          Hindi             Ratlam
Dainik Bhaskar      Daily          Hindi             Chindwada
Dainik Bhaskar      Daily          Hindi             Raipur
Dainik Bhaskar      Daily          Hindi             Bilaspur
Dainik Bhaskar      Daily          Hindi             Jaipur
Dainik Bhaskar      Daily          Hindi             Ajmer
Dainik Bhaskar      Daily          Hindi             Jodhpur
Dainik Bhaskar      Daily          Hindi             Pali
Dainik Bhaskar      Daily          Hindi             Bikaner




 Dainik   Bhaskar   Daily       Hindi       Udaipur
Dainik   Bhaskar   Daily       Hindi       Kota
Dainik   Bhaskar   Daily       Hindi       Chandigarh
Dainik   Bhaskar   Daily       Hindi       Shimla
Dainik   Bhaskar   Daily       Hindi       Panipat
Dainik   Bhaskar   Daily       Hindi       Hisar
Dainik   Bhaskar   Daily       Hindi       Jalandhar
Dainik   Bhaskar   Daily       Hindi       Amritsar
Dainik   Bhaskar   Daily       Hindi       Ludhiana
Dainik   Bhaskar   Daily       Hindi       Faridabad
Dainik   Bhaskar   Daily       Hindi       New Delhi
Dainik   Bhaskar   Daily       Hindi       Akola

8. Our attention has also been drawn to the fact that an

application, similar to the present one, that is, for publication of

Dainik Bhaskar in Hindi in Ranchi, was made by the Appellant

as far back as on 10.1.2008.

9. Mr. Mukul Rohtagi has submitted that an application for

Authentication has also been made in Jammu in respect of which

a stay order had been obtained by the Respondent but this

Order has been vacated. It has also been emphasized that the

Appellant has never even endeavoured to commence publication

of Dainik Bhaskar in the State of Uttar Pradesh since the

Respondent is engaged in the publication of Dainik Bhaskar in

this territory. It has also been highlighted by Mr. Rohtagi that in

the Red Herring Prospectus relating to the Public Issue by the

Appellant, it had been clearly stated that the Respondent is the

owner of title Dainik Bhaskar so far as the State of Uttar

Pradesh is concerned.

10. It is pointed out on behalf of the Appellant that the

Respondent's understanding of the purpose of the PRB Act was

also that the right of operation of publication is ordained

Statewise. This is predicated, inter alia, on paragraph 4(b) of

WP(C) No.4497/2010 titled Sanjay Aggarwal -vs- Registrar

of Newspapers for India filed by the Respondent, which reads

as follows:-

b. At various points of time different members of the Agarwal family, including the Petitioner, commenced publication of the newspaper ‗Dainik Bhaskar' in different parts of India. The Petitioner was given the right to publish the newspaper and ownership of the title ‗Dainik Bhaskar' in the State of Uttar Pradesh, which was recorded by the RNI.

It is pertinent to note that in one State, only one person can be given the right to publish a newspaper of a particular name by the RNI, which is evident from the proviso to Section 6 of the PRB Act. The Petitioner has been registered as the owner of the title Dainik Bhaksar in Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh; as per the communication dated June 18, 2004 issued by the RNI. As such, no other person can be permitted to publish a newspaper titled' Dainik Bhaskar'.

11. Section 5 of the PRB Act prohibits the publication of any

newspaper except in conformity with the Act and Rules. Sub-

Section (2) thereof requires the printer and publisher to make a

Declaration before the local Authority within whose jurisdiction

the proposed newspaper is to be printed or published, indicating

the title of the newspaper, the language in which it is to be

published, the periodicity of its publication, the premises from

where the publication is printed or publication is conducted,

specifying the name of the owners etc. Sub-section 2(d) thereof

mandates that any change in the factors enumerated above will

require a fresh Declaration. Similarly, where the ownership is

changed, a new Declaration would become necessary under sub-

section 2(e). Sub-section (5) thereof is of significance inasmuch

as it stipulates that if publication of the newspaper does not

commence within six weeks or three months, as the case may

be, of the authentication of the Declaration under Section 6 of

the PRB Act, the Declaration shall be rendered void. We have

highlighted only a few of the provisions of Section 5 of the PRB

Act. Although we need not record any definitive finding in this

regard, Mr. Rohtagi is right in pointing out that a piquant

position may arise where publication is not possible because of

a Restraint Order passed by a Court thereby necessitating fresh

action with regard to furnishing a Declaration after the passage

of six weeks or three months as contemplated in Section 5(5) of

the PRB Act. He elaborates his argument by alluding to the

amendment in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 whereby

Section 11 A came to be incorporated to remove this anomalous

possibility. Earlier thereto, if an Award could not be published

because of a stay order passed by any Court, it would become

vulnerable after the passage of two years. On the other hand,

the legal maxim to the effect that no party can be made to suffer

because of an action of the Court is also apposite.

12. Section 6, 8B and 8C of the PRB Act, which form the

fulcrum of the fight between the parties, are reproduced for

facility of reference:-

6. Authentication of declaration.--Each of the two originals of every declaration so made and subscribed as is aforesaid, shall be authenticated by the signature and official seal of the Magistrate before whom the said declaration shall have been made:

Provided that where any declaration is made and subscribed under Section 5 in respect of a newspaper, the declaration shall not, save in the case of newspapers owned by the same person, be so authenticated unless the Magistrate is, on inquiry from the Press Registrar, satisfied that the newspaper proposed to be published does not bear 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.

Deposit.--One of the said originals shall be deposited among the records of the office of the Magistrate, and the other shall be deposited among the records of the High Court of Judicature, or other

principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction for the place where the said declaration shall have been made.

Inspection and supply of copies.--The Officer in Charge of each original shall allow any person to inspect that original on payment of a fee of one rupee, and shall give to any person applying for a copy of the said declaration, attested by the seal of the Court which has the custody of the original, on payment of a fee of two rupees.

A copy of the declaration attested by the official seal of the Magistrate or a copy of the order refusing to authenticate the declaration, shall be forwarded as soon as possible to the person making and subscribing the declaration and also to the Press Registrar. 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. 8C. Appeal.--(1) Any person aggrieved by an order of a Magistrate refusing to authenticate a declaration under Section 6 or cancelling a declaration under Section 8-B 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 the Press Council of India, established under Section 4 of the Press Councils Act, 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) One 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.

13. The first aspect of the assault on the impugned Order is

that a writ petition is not maintainable. The contention of

Mr. Mukul Rohtagi is that the Writ Petitioner/Respondent was

statutorily bound to carry his grievance to the Magistrate who

had authenticated the Declaration, namely, the Sub Divisional

Officer, Ranchi. This is so because it is the opinion of the Writ

Petitioner/Respondent that the Declaration made in respect of

the newspaper Dainik Bhaskar should be cancelled. A plain

reading of Section 8B makes it evident that the Press Registrar

or any other person has the statutorily vested right to file an

application before the Magistrate concerned for cancellation of

the Authentication. The Section then mandates that an

opportunity to Show Cause against the cancellation would have

to be granted to the party in whose favour and at whose

instance the Authentication has been carried out. Thereafter, an

inquiry would have to be held by the Magistrate in which all

affected persons would have to be heard. It should immediately

be noted that Section 6 of the PRB Act does not prescribe any

public hearing in contradistinction to that contemplated in

Section 8B. Section 6 of the PRB Act enjoins that the

Magistrate, after making an inquiry from the Press Registrar,

should be satisfied that the newspaper proposed to be published

does not bear 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. Paraphrased by us in the premises of this

Appeal, so far as authentication under Section 6 of the PRB Act

is concerned, the Authentication would be effected by the Sub

Divisional Officer, Ranchi only upon his being satisfied that

there is no other newspaper with a title similar to Dainik

Bhaskar published in Hindi. Furthermore, because of the

employment of the words ‗either/or', the Magistrate would also

have to be satisfied that there is no other newspaper under

publication in the State of Jharkhand with the name similar to

Dainik Bhaskar. The sweep of the powers of the Magistrate for

cancellation of a Declaration is not confined to these

considerations alone. The very fact that the inquiry under

Section 8B of the PRB Act is broader than that under Section 6

of the PRB Act and requires the Authority to give an opportunity

of showing cause to anyone who may be adversely affected and

also providing such person with an opportunity of being heard is

indicative of the absolute necessity of an aggrieved party to

ventilate its grievances before the Magistrate. The cancellation

of the Declaration under Section 8B of the PRB Act is postulated

in as many as four circumstances. Firstly, where the publication

of the newspaper is in contravention of the provisions of the

PRB Act or Rules; which makes it immediately obvious that this

ground is totally distinct to that mentioned in Section 6 of the

PRB Act. The second ground is identical to that spelt out in

Section 6 of the PRB Act. The third ground palpably arises after

Authentication of the Declaration is carried out, and, therefore,

bears little relevance to the legal and statutory correctness of

the grant of authentication. This is because the third ground

speaks of a situation where there has been a change in the

person or the publication or the publisher. Fourthly, and most

importantly for the purposes of the present litigation, the

Magistrate may cancel a Declaration if it was made on false

representations or on the concealment of any material fact etc.

Obviously, the relief granted in the fourth factual matrix would

become otiose and meaningless if a party were to be permitted

to ventilate its objections before a Writ Court, bypassing the

Magistrate concerned.

14. It is in this state of affairs that we are of the opinion that

the Writ Petition should not be entertained until and unless the

Petitioner has approached the concerned Magistrate, bringing

all relevant facts before him. A conjoint reading of Sections 6

and 8, we reiterate, make it abundantly clear that the Objector

is not to be heard at the stage where the Magistrate is to decide

whether or not to authenticate the Declaration. If

Authentication is not deserved, the remedy is provided by

Section 8B of the PRB Act.

15. It has been argued before us that Section 8C of the PRB

Act does not, in fact, provide a person, such as the Writ

Petitioner/Respondent, with any right to appeal. The argument

is that this right is confined to a person whose Declaration has

not been authenticated or having been so done, it has been

cancelled under Section 8B of the PRB Act. We shall abjure from

going deeper into this question for the simple reason that

neither of those eventualities has occurred. In the case in hand,

the Declaration of the Appellant has been authenticated under

Section 6 of the PRB Act and this has not been cancelled simply

because the Respondent has, ill-advisedly, not elected to

approach the concerned Magistrate under Section 8B of the

PRB Act. However, the provisions of Section 8C of the PRB Act

fortify our view that it is essential for a person opposed to the

authentication of a Declaration to approach the Magistrate.

16. This is not our view alone. In the dispute between the

present adversaries, the very same learned Single Judge has

taken this view in WP(C) No.9016/2008 titled Sanjay

Aggarwal -vs- Union of India decided on 25.8.2010. The

learned Single Judge had declined to exercise the extraordinary

powers preserved in the Writ Court under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India since an efficacious statutory remedy has

been provided under the PRB Act but had not been availed of.

Poignantly, this very Order records that the Respondent had

approached the Appellate Board under Section 8C of the PRB

Act to challenge the Cancellation Order passed against him in

May, 2009. In this very case, the same learned Single Judge had

dismissed the Writ Petition by Orders dated 28.7.2010, noting

that the communication envisaged in Section 6 of the PRB Act

had not been carried out by the Magistrate, thereby rendering

the Petition premature. While doing so, the learned Single Judge

had clarified that it was open to the Respondent/Writ Petitioner

―to seek such appropriate remedy as are available to him in

terms of the PRB Act‖. Liberty to invoke the extraordinary

jurisdiction of the Court had not been granted.

17. This is sufficient reason for us to allow the Appeal and set

aside the impugned Order. However, since the arguments have

been heard in detail, and lest further controversy be created by

the parties, it appears to us that the Appellant had not misled

the Writ Court in any manner. On 28.7.2010, Authentication

under Section 6 of the PRB Act had not been granted. This being

the position, the occasion for filing of the Objections under

Section 8B had not arisen. That event has only transpired on

17.8.2010 when the Authentication had been given. Whether the

communication dated 30.6.2010 prohibits the Authentication

and/or whether an inquiry made, or more appropriately

guidance sought by the Sub Divisional Officer, Ranchi in his

letter dated 14.8.2010 to the RNI at Delhi, preclude or prohibit

the Sub Divisional Officer from granting Authentication. We do

not propose to give a definitive answer to the argument raised

by Mr.Rajeev Nayyar that it was improper for the Appellant to

seek any clearance from the RNI in respect of the title of the

publication before applying to the Sub Divisional Officer, Ranchi

for Authentication under Section 6 of the PRB Act. This, at the

highest, can be seen merely as a procedural aberration of the

provisions of the PRB Act.

18. The circumstances of this case did not warrant the

learned Single Judge to reopen a decided case and virtually

overturn the previous decision even though it may have been his

own.

19. In this analysis, it is our opinion that the Respondent must

take recourse to Section 8B of the PRB Act. We must, therefore,

clarify that our appreciation of the factual matrix is on a prima

facie basis. Therefore, when the concerned Magistrate, namely,

Sub Divisional Officer, Ranchi is approached for redress under

Section 8B of the PRB Act, he shall do so assuming that he has a

clean slate so far as the facts of the case are concerned. His

final decision shall not be untrammeled by any of the

observations made herein.

20. For these manifold and myriad reasons, we accept the

Appeal and set aside the impugned Order. The effect will be that

the Appellant shall be free to publish the newspaper Dainik

Bhaskar in Ranchi, pursuant to the Authentication granted

under Section 6 of the PRB Act. Needless to state, this will be

without prejudice to any order that may come to be passed

under Section 8B of the PRB Act.

21. There shall be no order as to costs.

( VIKRAMAJIT SEN ) JUDGE

( MUKTA GUPTA ) JUDGE September 07, 2010 tp