Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
PETITIONER:
GOPAL DASS SHARMA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, JAMMU & ANR,.
DATE OF JUDGMENT10/11/1972
BENCH:
SIKRI, S.M. (CJ)
BENCH:
SIKRI, S.M. (CJ)
RAY, A.N.
PALEKAR, D.G.
BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH
DWIVEDI, S.N.
CITATION:
1973 AIR 213 1973 SCR (2) 969
1973 SCC (1) 159
ACT:
Press and Registration of Books Act (25 of 1867) ss. 6 and
8B-Scope of-Cancellation of declaration if violates
fundamental right of carrying on business.
HEADNOTE:
Before a magistrate cancels a declaration under s. 8B of the
Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, he has to give a
notice and opportunity to the person concerned to show cause
against the action proposed and hold an enquiry. If he is
thereafter satisfied that (a) the newspaper is published in
contravention of the provisions of the Act or rules made
thereunder, or (b) the newspaper bears a title which is the
same as, or similar to, that of any other newspaper either
in the same language or in the same State, or (c) the
printer or publisher has ceased to be its printer or
publisher, or (d) the declaration was made on false
representation or concealment of any material fact, he may
cancel the declaration. [971 C-F]
In the present case, the petitioner gave the title
’Blitzkrieg’ as his first preference for the title of his
newspaper and the magistrate authenticated the declaration
as required by s. 6 of the Act. Thereafter, the magistrate
cancelled the declaration on the ground that the title is
the same as that of ’Blitz’ without giving any opportunity
to the petitioner.
In a petition under Art. 32,
HELD : (1) The order of cancellation should be quashed. [972
B]
(a) It violated the petitioner’s fundamental rights to
carry on the occupation of editor and the business of
publishing a newspaper. [972 A-B]
(b) The order was passed with unseemly haste without giving
any opportunity to the petitioner. [971 H]
(2) The Second notice given to the petitioner during the
pendency of the writ proceedings should also be quashed as
the titles ’Blitzkrieg’ and ’Blitz’ are totally different
titles and there is no ground for cancellation of the
declaration. [971 G-H; 972 B-C]
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
JUDGMENT:
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 270 of 1972.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for the en-
forcement of fundamental rights.
Petitioner appeared in person.
R. N. Sachthey for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
RAY, J.-This writ petition is directed against an order
dated 8 July, 1971 made by the District Magistrate, Jammu.
970
The District Magistrate by the said order under section 8B
(ii) of the Press & Registration of Books Act 1867, referred
to as the Act, cancelled the petitioner’s declaration dated
23 April, 1971.
The petitioner is a citizen of India. lie is a permanent
resident of the State of Jammu & Kashmir. On 2 June, 1970
he made an application to the District Magistrate, Jammu for
permission to start a weekly paper in English from Jammu.
The petitioner in accordance with the rules under the Act
gave a list of 11 names in order of preference. The first
preference given by the petitioner was "Blitzkrieg".
The petitioner on 9 February, 1971 made a declaration under
section 5 of the Act giving particulars of the newspaper.
the title of the newspaper, the language in which it was to
be published as also the periodicity of the publication. A
second declaration was given by the. petitioner on 23 April,
1971. The second declaration was necessitated because of
two changes. One was as regards the, day of publication.
It was shifted from Saturday to Tuesday. The other was with
regard to the name of the printing press. The District
Magistrate, under section 6 of the Act, authenticated the
declaration made by the petitioner. A declaration made
under rules laid down in section 5 and authenticated under
section 6 shall be necessary before the newspaper can be
published.
The first issue of the petitioner’s weekly paper was
published on 20 March, 1971.
Some time in the month of July 1971 the petitioner was serv-
ed with a notice dated 7 July, 1971 asking him to show cause
why the declaration dated 23 April, 1971 might not be
cancelled inasmuch as the petitioner’s title of the weekly
newspaper Blitzkrieg was similar to that of Blitz published
from Bombay. The petitioner was asked to show cause by 8
August, 1971.
The petitioner came to know on 16 July 1971 from the notice
dated 13 July, 1971 served upon the Keeper of the Printing
Press where the petitioner printed the issue of his paper
that the declaration of the petitioner for ’Blitzkrieg’ had
been cancelled by the District Magistrate, Jammu by an order
dated 8 July 1971.
The petitioner alleges the District Magistrate’s displeasure
with the petitioner. Though the District Magistrate in the
notice dated 7 July, 1971 gave the petitioner one month’s
time till 8 August, 1971 to show cause, yet the District
Magistrate cancelled the petitioner’s declaration on 8 July,
1971.
971
The petitioner challenges the validity of the order. the
petitioner alleges the order to be violative of his
fundamental rights to carry on occupation, trade or
business.
The District Magistrate in his affidavit alleged that in the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
notice dated 7 July 1971 the date 8 August. 1971 was a
typing error. Therefore, by an order dated 8 November 1971
the notice was withdrawn and a fresh notice was served on
the petitioner to show cause by 20 November, 1971 as to why
his declaration should not be cancelled.
The petitioner obtained a rule on 2 August, 1971. It is
apparent that the District Magistrate took, the steps after
the petitioner had exposed the wrongful and illegal acts.
The cancellation of the declaration is made under section 8B
of the Act. The Magistrate is to give a notice to the
person concerned. An opportunity is to be given to show
cause against the action proposed. An enquiry is to be
held. An opportunity is to be given to the person concerned
to being heard. If the Magistrate is thereafter satisfied
that (a) the newspaper is published in contravention of the
provisions of the Act or rules made thereunder, or (b) 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 (c) the, printer or publisher has ceased to be the
printer or publisher of the newspaper mentioned in such decla
ration, or (d) 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.
In the present case the respondents justify the cancellation
on the ground that the title of Blitzkrieg is the same as
that of Blitz. In the, affidavit the District Magistrate
stated that the title of Blitzkrieg "had been inadvertently
cleared in favour of" the petitioner. That is not a ground
for cancellation of declaration. The petitioner,gave the
title Blitzkrieg as the first in order of preference. 11
titles were given. The Magistrate authenticated the
petitioner’s declaration in respect of the. title
Blitzkrieg. The newspaper Blitz cannot be said to be either
a recent publication or to be unknown. The petitioner
contended that Blitz and Blitzkrieg were different titles.
So they are.
The cancellation was wrongful. It was hasty. No opportu-
nity was given to the petitioner. ’The explanation of a
typing error with regard to the date indicates the unseemly
haste with which the District Magistrate took action against
the petitioner.
972
It was said on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner
had a right of appeal under section 8C of the Act. It is
also said that no fundamental right of the petitioner was
infringed by the cancellation. The petitioner’s fundamental
right to carry on the occupation of editor of newspaper as
well as business of publishing a newspaper is infringed by
the illegal act.
The order of the District Magistrate dated 8 July 1971
canceling the petitioner’s declaration is quashed. We have
taken notice of the subsequent event during the pendency of
this rule when the District Magistrate issued another notice
dated 9 November, 1971 asking the petitioner to show cause
why the declaration should not be cancelled. That notice
dated 9 November, 1971 is also quashed. There will be no
order as to costs.
V.P.S. Petition allowed.
973