Judgment B.S.SINHA, J. 1. , The prayer of the petitioner, in this application under Art.226 of the Constitution, is to quash the order, dated the 2nd March, 1976, copy of which is appended to and marked as Annexure-1. By this order, the Governor of Bihar has been pleased to declare that the Jaihind Press, located in Devendra Nath Das Lane, Mohalla Langartoli. within Pirbahore Police station of the town of Patna, be forfeited to the State Government. 2. The petitioner is the son of the proprietor of Jaihind Press and looks after its affairs and management. 3. On the 12th September, 1975, a police party raided the Jaihind Press premises, and recovered a number of copies of the Hindi Journal named Lok-Vani. dated the 20th September, 1975. On the basis of the recovery of the copies of this Journal, a police case, bearing Kadam Kuan P.S. case No. 20 (9) 75 was registered. Thereafter, on the 21st November, 1975, the petitioner received a notice from the State Government, a copy of which has been appended to and marked as Annexure-4. In this notice, it is stated, inter alia, that whereas the Jaihind Press had been engaged in printing of a Newspaper Lokvani dated the 20th September, 1975, endangering the civil defence, public security and maintenance of public order, in contravention of the order of the Central Government bearing S. O. No. 275 (E), dated the 26th June, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as S. O. No. 275 (E), the petitioner should show cause, before the Under-Secretary to Government in the Home Department (Special Section), within 15 days from the date of the notice, as to why the Jaihind Press should not be forfeited to the Government under sub-rule (2) of R. 48 of the Defence and Internal Security of India Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the DIR 1971). The petitioner showed cause by his letter, dated the 8th December, 1975, addressed to the Under-Secretary to Government, Home Department (Special Section). However, by the impugned order, the State Government forfeited the Jaihind Press. In the writ petition, the order forfeiting the Press has been challenged primarily on two grounds, namely, (i) that there is no item of news or views expressed in the Lokvani, dated Sept. However, by the impugned order, the State Government forfeited the Jaihind Press. In the writ petition, the order forfeiting the Press has been challenged primarily on two grounds, namely, (i) that there is no item of news or views expressed in the Lokvani, dated Sept. 20, 1975 which contravenes any of the directions given in S. O, No.275 (E), and (ii) that the impugned order, not being a speaking order, is liable to be quashed, more so, as it has been passed without considering the case and show cause filed by the petitioner. 4. In support of this application, Mr. Radha Raman, learned counsel for the petitioner, has made three submissions. The first is that the petitioner has not contravened any law relating to pre-censorship as laid down by the DIR 1971 and S. O. No.275 (E). Secondly, the forfeiture of the Press, in the circumstances of the case, is not authorised by law and hence is fit to be quashed. Thirdly, the order is mechanical and arbitrary, Mr. Radha Raman, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however, made it clear that he was not challenging the vires either of S. O, No. 275 (E) or of any of the provisions of the DIR 1971. 5. A counter-affidavit, has been filed on behalf of the State, in which, it has been stated that on receipt of confidential information regarding contravention of the Censor Code and the orders made under the DIR 1971, an Executive Magistrate, along with the District Public Relations Officer and a police party, raided the premises of the Jaihind Press and recovered a large number of copies of the Journal Lokvani for which a substantive case for violation of the order issued under R.48 (1) of the DIR 1971 and the provisions of Press and Registration of Books Act was instituted in the Kadam Kuan Police Station. Paras 6 and 7 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent are as follows:- "(6) That the statements made in paragraph 11 (wrongly numbered as paragraph 10) of the petition it is stated that the Central Government by its aforesaid statutory order, prohibited publication of any news, comments, rumour or other report relating to (a) contravention, or alleged or purported contravention of certain provisions of the Defence of India Rules, specified therein, and orders made thereunder; (b) any action taken in relation to such contravention of Internal Security Act, 1971, without pre-censor. It is submitted that if any news item, which comes within the scope of the aforesaid three categories, is published without pre-censor, it ipso facto amounts to contravention of R. 48 (1) of D. I. Rules and the provisions of R. 48 (2) are attracted, apart from any prosecution that may be launched. (7) That publication of the news about the arrest of Shri Nanaji Deshmukh, Jan Sangh leader, who was arrested and detained under the provisions of MISA on 26-8-1975 relates to an action taken under the provisions of MISA and was forbidden without pre-censor vide item (e) of the said statutory order. Similarly, Shri Rabindra Kumar Keshri had been arrested on 2-9-1975 in Pirbahore P.S. Case No.4, dated 2-9-1975 under R.33 (3) D. I. R., for being member of a banned organisation, namely, R. S. S. The publication of this news also related to an action taken in relation to contravention of an order made under R.33 D. I. R., which finds mention in the aforesaid Central Government notification, dated 26-6-1975, and which was forbidden vide item (b) of the said statutory order. It is further stated that the news-item relating to the detention of political leaders and social workers referred to in the impugned journal under the caption Itihas Kya Kahata Hai refers to such political leaders and social workers who have been detained under MISA. Persons who had been arrested for substantive offences have been released on bail." 6. It is further stated that the news-item relating to the detention of political leaders and social workers referred to in the impugned journal under the caption Itihas Kya Kahata Hai refers to such political leaders and social workers who have been detained under MISA. Persons who had been arrested for substantive offences have been released on bail." 6. On the basis of the statements made in paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit, which I have quoted above, the learned Advocate-General, appearing on behalf of the respondent, has submitted that the two news appearing in the Journal under the headings "Nanaji Deshmukh Giraftar" and "Shri Keshri bhi Giraftar", related to news or other report regarding any action taken under the provisions of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act 1971 (hereinafter called MISA) and R.33 (3) of the DIR 1971. As these news were published without pre-censor, it violated S. O. No.275 (E). The learned Advocate-General also drew our attention to a passage in the Journal under the caption "Itihas Kya Kahata Hai", in which, an appeal was made to Smt. Indira Gandhi to release the political leaders from jail. Submission was that an appeal to release political leaders from jail could only be referable to detention under the MISA. 7. In view of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent and the submissions made by the learned Advocate-General, the question that falls for consideration is whether the three items referred to above violate S. O. No.275 (E). Under sub-rule (1) of R. 48 of the DIR 1971, the Central Government or the State Government, may for the purpose of securing the defence of India and civil defence, the public safety, the maintenance of Public Order or the efficient conduct of military operations, by order addressed to a printer, publisher or editor, or to printers, publishers and editors generally require that all matters, or any matter relating to a particular subject or class of subjects, shall, before published in any document or class of documents, be submitted for scrutiny to an authority specified in the order and prohibit or regulate the making or publishing of any document or class of documents, or of any matter relating to a particular subject or class of subjects or the use of any press. In exercise of this power, the Central Government in the Ministry of Home Affairs, by its order No. S. O. 275 (E), dated the 26th June, 1975, published in the Gazette of India (Extraordinary), Part II, S.3 (ii), dated the 26th June, 1975, have prohibited the publication of any news, comments, rumour or other reports relating to matters specified in that notification, unless such news, comments, rumour or other reports have been submitted for scrutiny to an authorised officer and the publication thereof is authorised in writing by such officer. The notification further provides that no publication shall be made except in accordance with the conditions or restrictions as the officer may impose. The authorised officer means the Principal Information Officer, Director, Public Relations or Deputy Principal Information Officer in the Press Information Bureau of the Government of India at New Delhi or a Director of a State Government or Union Territory Administration. It is not disputed that the three items published in the Journal "Lokvani reference to which I have made above, were published without being submitted for scrutiny and without obtaining written permission for its publication by the authorised officer. 8. The copy of the Journal Lokvani dated 20th Sept. 1975, has been appended to and marked as Annexure-6 and in order to appreciate the submissions made at the Bar, it would be convenient to refer first to those two items of news, appearing in the Journal which relate to the arrest of Shri Nanaji Deshmukh and Keshri. The news relating to the arrest of Sri Nanaji Deshmukh runs as follows:- It will be seen that the news relating to Shri Nanaji Deshmukh states that he has been arrested the previous week in Delhi and the Government was happy over his arrest. However, notice was being given to the Government that in the Chatra Sangharsha Samiti, there were thousands of Nanaji Deshmukhs, who were active and that the people of the country were with Nanaji Deshmukh. It follows, therefore, that there is nothing, in the news item itself, to show that any action had been taken under the MISA. However, notice was being given to the Government that in the Chatra Sangharsha Samiti, there were thousands of Nanaji Deshmukhs, who were active and that the people of the country were with Nanaji Deshmukh. It follows, therefore, that there is nothing, in the news item itself, to show that any action had been taken under the MISA. However, on the basis of the counter-affidavit, filed on behalf of the State, stating therein, that Nanaji Deshmukh had been arrested on the 26th August, 1975, and was being detained under the provisions of the MISA, it has been urged, there had been violation of paragraph 1 (e) of S. O. No. 275 (E). 8. (A). Similarly, the news with regard to the arrest of Shri Keshri states that the Provincial Secretary of the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad Shri Ravindra Pd. Keshri was doing relief work, to help the flood victims of Patna, and when after doing such work at about 10 P.M. on the 2nd September. 1975 he was going back home, the police arrested him. It was further stated that many other leaders of the Jan Sangharsha Samiti, who were helping flood stricken people of Patna, had been arrested and this precluded the corruption of the State authorities from being brought to the notice of the public. Here again, it will be found that there is nothing to indicate that Ravindra Kumar Keshri had been arrested for contravening the provisions of R. 33 (3) of the DIR 1971. However, by relying upon the statement made in the counter-affidavit, the learned Advocate-General contended that the publication of this news violated paragraph 1 (a) and/or 1 (b) of S. O. No. 275 (E). 9. Mr. Radha Raman, on the other hand, contended that neither of these two items of news related to any action taken under the provisions of MISA or any contravention of R.33 of the DIR 1971. 10. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, it would be convenient at this stage to quote the relevant portions of S. O. No. 275 (E), which is as follows- "Whereas the Central Government is of the opinion that for the purpose of securing the defence of India and civil defence, the public safety and maintenance of public order, it is necessary to do so. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of R.48 of the Defence of India Rules, 1971, the Central Government hereby makes the following order, namely,- (1) That no news, comments, rumour or other report, relating to- (a) any contravention or alleged or purported contravention of any of the provisions of Part III Rr. 31 and 33 of Part IV Rr. 38, 39, 43, 46, 47, 48, 50, 51 and 52 of Part V, Part VIII and Part IX of the said Rules including orders made thereunder, or (b) any action taken in relation to such contravention, or (c) any action taken under the provisions of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (26 of 1971). shall be published in any newspaper, periodical or other documents unless such news, comments, rumour or other report has been submitted for scrutiny to an authorised officer and the publication thereof is authorised in writing by such officer," 10(A). It has to be considered whether the two news referred to above relate to any action taken under the provisions of MISA or relate to any contravention or alleged or purported contravention of the provisions of R.33 of the DIR 1971. The ordinary meaning of the words "relating to" is in connection with, with regard to or indicating. Can it then be said that the news relating to the arrest of Nanaji Deshmukh is news in connection with, with regard to or indicating action taken under the provisions of MISA? The news, as I have stated above, emphasises two facts:- (i) that Nanaji Deshmukh has been arrested in Delhi and; (ii) that the Chatra Sangharsh Samiti was possessed of thousands of Nanaji Deshmukhs, who were active. In the news, there is no indication that Nanaji Deshmukh had been taken in detention under MISA. For the first time, in the counter-affidavit of the State, it has been stated that Nanaji Deshmukh has been detained under MISA. But, the question to be considered is what information is conveyed by the news as published in the Journal? The question is whether the information relates to an action taken under the provisions of MISA? It would be sufficient if there was anything in the news to indicate that any action had been taken under the provisions of MISA. But, the question to be considered is what information is conveyed by the news as published in the Journal? The question is whether the information relates to an action taken under the provisions of MISA? It would be sufficient if there was anything in the news to indicate that any action had been taken under the provisions of MISA. If there is no such indication, it cannot be said that the news is one relating to such an action. By going through the news as published in the Journal, there is nothing to indicate that any action has been taken under MISA against Nanaji Deshmukh. As such, I am of the opinion that the news item relating to the arrest of Nanaji Deshmukh is not a news relating to any action taken under the provisions of MISA. 11. The meaning that I have given to the word "relating to" finds support from a Bench decision of Calcutta High Court in Mani Mohan Ghose V/s. Emperor (AIR 1931 Cal 745): (1932) 33 Cri LJ 138). In that case, question that had fallen for consideration was whether an information was one under S.154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that is to say, one "relating to the commission of a cognizable offence" and it was held that until in the information, there is an indication that a cognizable offence has been committed, it cannot be said that the information is one "relating to" such an offence. 12. Similarly, there is no indication in the news relating to the arrest of Shri Keshri that he had been arrested under R.33 (3) of the DIR for being member of a particular organization, namely, the R. S. S. The news, on the other hand, states that Ravindra Nath Keshri, is the provincial Secretary of the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad, who had been arrested at 10 P.M. when he was returning after doing relief work. In the news itself, there is nothing to indicate that the news related to any contravention or alleged or purported contravention or any action taken in relation to such contravention of R.33 of DIR 1971. On a parity of reasoning, I must hold that the publication of this news also is not in violation of paragraph 1 (a) or 1 (b) of S.O. No. 275 (E). 13. On a parity of reasoning, I must hold that the publication of this news also is not in violation of paragraph 1 (a) or 1 (b) of S.O. No. 275 (E). 13. There still remains to be considered, the submission of the learned Advocate General, that the appeal to Smt. Indira Gandhi to release the political leaders who were in jail relates to an action taken under the provisions of MISA. The argument is that only when a person is detained under the provisions of MISA, the executive is entitled to release him or her and, as such, the appeal for the release of the political leaders relates to the release of those political leaders who had been detained under the provisions of MISA. I am unable to accept this submission. It cannot be said that the executive is authorised to release only those political leaders who have been detained under the provisions of MISA. There is power vested in the executive, in certain circumstances, to withdraw pending criminal cases and the executive is also authorised to grant reprieves and pardons to persons who are undergoing detention after conviction. In that view, it cannot be said that when an appeal was made, for the release from prison of political leaders, such appeal necessarily related to any action taken under the provisions of MISA. It can relate to other types of cases as well and an appeal to release political prisoners by itself is too general and not suggestive of detention under MISA alone so as to attract the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of S.O. No. 275 (E). 14. The learned Government Pleader No.III who followed Mr. Advocate-General in making submissions, has drawn our attention to a passage right at the beginning of the Journal which runs as follow: - It means that in the name of emergency, dictatorship and Police Raj was being established, which could not be disputed. Last year Jai Prakash Narain and other student leaders had pointed out to the public that there was likelihood of a dictatorship in the country. Although to show to the world, there was democracy, but basically today, there was autocracy in the country. It has been urged that the above passage as appearing in the Journal is an infringement of R.36 (6) of the DIR 1971. Although to show to the world, there was democracy, but basically today, there was autocracy in the country. It has been urged that the above passage as appearing in the Journal is an infringement of R.36 (6) of the DIR 1971. R.48 (2) of DIR 1971 provides that forfeiture of a Press can be ordered by the Government only if a person contravenes any order made under sub-rule (1) of R.48 of DIR 1971. As, in para (1) (a) of S.O. No.275 (E), which I have quoted in extenso above, R.36, DIR, 1971 is not included and only Rules 37, 38, 39, 43, 46, 47, 48, 50, 51 and 52 of Part V are mentioned, it automatically follows that no order for forfeiture can be passed for infringement of R.36. Hence, there is no substance in this submission of Mr. Government Pleader No. III. 15. In view of the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent and the submissions made by the Advocate-General and Government Pleader No. III, it is not necessary to refer to any other portion of the Journal to consider whether there has been any violation of S.O. No.275 (E). 16. Having held that the passages, referred to on behalf of the respondent, do not attract the provisions of S.O. No.275 (E), it follows that the order, dated 2nd March, 1976, forfeiting to the Government the Jai-hind Press is not in accordance with law and must, therefore, be quashed and set aside. In such circumstances, it is not necessary to consider the other submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. 17. In the result, this application is allowed and the order, dated the 2nd March, 1976, copy of which is Annexure-1 to this writ application, is quashed and set aside. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. K.B.N.SINGH, J. 18 I agree.