GOPAL DASS SHARMA v. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, JAMMU & Anr.

Before a magistrate cancels a dedaration under s. SB of tire Press and Registration of Books Ac~ 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 be is thereafter satisfied that (a) th,e newsraper is published in contravention of the provisions of the Act or rules made the •ewspaper bears a title which is the same as, or thereunder, or (b) .rimllar to, that of a•y other •ewspaper either in the same language· or in the same State, or (c) the printer or publisher bas ceased to be its printer or publisher, or (d) the declaration was made 1 on false representation or concealment of any material fact, he may cancel ·the declaration. [971 C-Fl In the present case, the petitioner gave the title 'Blitzkr~g· as his first preference for ·~e title of his newspaper and the magistrate authenti cated the declaration as required by s. 6 of the Act. Thereafter, the magis· Irate 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 BJ (a) It violated the petitioner'; to carry on the occupation of editor and the business of publishing a newspaper. !972 A-BJ fundamental right• (b) The order was passed with unseemly haste without giving any opportunity to the petitioner. [971 HJ (2) The Second noti<:e given to the petitioner during th,e pendency of the writ proceedings should also be quashed as the titles 'Blitzkrieg' and 'Blitz' are totally ilifferent titles and there is no ground for canoellatlon · df the declaration. [971 G-H; 972 B-C] ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 270 of 1972. Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for forcement of fundamental rights. the en Petitioner appeared (n person. R. N. Sachthey for the respondents. H The JudR1I1ent 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 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1973] 2 S.C.R. The Distriot Magistrate by the said order under section 8B(ii). A of the Press & Registra.(ion of Books Act 1867, referred ~o as the Act, cancelled the petitioner's declaration dated 23 Apnl, 1971. The petitioner is a citizen of India: "He is a pei; manent resi dent o,f the State of Jammu & Kashmir. On 2 June, 1970 he made an application to the District Magistrate, Jammu for permis sion to start a weekly paper in English from Jammu. The peti tioner 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 mad~ 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 second declaration also the periodicity of the publication. A 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 10 Tuesday. The other was with regard to the name of the. print ing press. The District Magistrate, under section 6 of the Act. authenticated the declaration made by the petitioner. A decla ration 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 un 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 inas much as the petitioner's title of the weekly newspaper Blitzkrieg was similar to that of Blitz -published from Bombay. The peti tioner was asked to show cause by 8 August, 1971. The petitioner came to know on 16 July 1971 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 Distcict 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 notio~ dated 7 July, 1971 gave the petitioner one month's time till 8 August, 1971 to show cause, yet the District Magi~trate cancelled the petitioner's declaration on ~ July, 1971. B c D E F G H A c D E F G H G. D. SHARMA v. DIST. MAGISTRATE (Ray, J.) 971 The petitioner challenges the validity of the order. The peti tioner alleges the order to be violative of his fundamental rights to carry on occupation, trade or blusiness. The District Magistrate in his allidavit alleged tlfat notice dated 7 July 1971 the date 8 August, 1971 was a typing error. Therefore, ~ an order dated 8 November 1971 notice was withdrawn and a fresh notice was served on the peti tioner to show cause by 20 November. 1971 as to why his decla ration should not be cancelled. The petitioner obtained a rule on 2 August, 1971. ~s apparent that the District Magistrati: took tlie. steps after the pell- · tioner had exposed the wrongful and iJlegaJ acts. It 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 giv_51n .to the person concerned to being hear.ct. If the Magistrate is thereafter satisfied that (a) the newspaper. is pub lished in contravention of the provisions of the Act or rules ma.de 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 lanjl, uage 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 declaration, or ( d) 'lhe decla~ation was made on false representation or on i1 periodical coneealment of any material fact or in respect of work which is not a newspaper, the Magistrate may, by order, cancel the declaration. In the present case the respondents justify the cancellation that of on the ground that the title of Blitzkrieg is t!ie same as In the affidavit t~ District Magistrate stated that the title Blitz. of Bliltzkrieg "had been inadvertently cleared in favour of' the petitioner. That is not a ground for cancellation of declaration. The petitioner !!ave th·~ tit17 Blitzkrieg as the first in order of pre ference. 11 lltles were given. The Magistrate authenticated the petitiqner.'.s declaration in. respect of the title Blitzkrieg. The newspaper Bhtz cannot be said to be either a recent publication that Blitz and or to be unknown. The petitioner contended Blitzkrieg were different titles. So they are. . The ca_nceUation was ."!'rongful. It was hasty. No opportu mty wa~ given to the pel!!Ioner. The explanation of a typing err?r with repai:d to th: date indicates the unseemly haste with which the D1stnct Magistrate took action against the petitioner. 972 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1973] 2 S.C.R, le was said on behalf of the respomfonts that the petitioner had a right of 11-ppeal under section 8C of the Act. 1t is also said that no fundamell'tal 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 publish ing a newspaper is infringed by the illegal act. A The order of the District Magistrate dated 8 July 1971 can celling the petitioner's declaration is quashed. We have notice of the subsequent event during the pendency of this when the Distriet Magistrate issued another notice dated 9 Novem ber, 1971 asking the petitfoner to show cause why the declaration should not be cancelled. That notice dated 9 November, 1971 is ·also qqashed. There will be no order as to costs. c V.P.S. Petition allowed.