A. M. BHATTACHARJEE, J. ( 1 ) A short and a simple question, and a question which is no longer res integra. The question has been settled almost beyond any doubt for about a decade and a half since the decisions of the Supreme Court in E. P. Royappa, AIR 1974 SC 555 ; in Erusion Equipments and Chemicals Ltd. , AIR 1975 SC 266 , in Maneka Gandhi, AIR 1978 SC 597 , in International Airport Authority, AIR 1979 SC 1628 ; in Kashturi Lal Laxmi Reddy, AIR 1980 SC 1992 and a host of other decisions. Reference may also be made to a very recent decision of the Supreme Court (reported in the September Issue of the All India Reporter) in Dwarkadas Marfatia, AIR 1989 SC 1642 . ( 2 ) THE cumulative upshot of all these decisions would unmistakably demonstrate not only the expansion of the frontiers of judicial review of administrative actions, but also the expansion of the concept of administrative or State action itself. No detailed reference to these long catena of decisions is at all necessary as the position now appears to be too firmly established in our Administrative-cum-Constitutional Jurisprudence and Mr. Subrata Roy Chowdhury, the learned Counsel for the Respondents, has not also disputed the position in law. But since we have not been able to get rid of the forensic habit, imbided from the Britishers, of moving, in matters of law, on the crutches of precedents and have developed a mental frame not to feel confident or of not being able to have inspired confidence without citation of authorities, I would propose to refer to the decision in Kasturi Lai Lakshrm Reddy, AIR 1980 SC 1992 and in Dwarkadas Marfatia, AIR 1989 SC 1642 to maintain the continuity of our curial rituals. ( 3 ) THE three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Kasturi Lai Lakshmi Reddy (supra, at to 1999) has ruled that "whatever be its activity", governmental or non-governmental, statutory or contractual, public welfare or purely commercial, "the Government is still the Government"; "every activity of the Government has a public element in it and it must, therefore, be informed with reasons and guided by public interest"; "every action taken by the Government must be in public interest"; "the Government cannot act arbitrarily and, without reason and if it does, its action would be liable to be invalidated". ( 4 ) IN Dwarkadas Marfatia (supra, at 1647-1649), the Supreme Court, after referring to and relying on Kasturi Lai Lakshmi Reddy, ( AIR 1980 SC 1992 ) (supra) and other earlier as Well as later decisions has reiterated that even though Art. 14 cannot be construed as of an unfettered character for judicial review for State actions, and "to call upon the State to account for its actions in its manifold activities by stating reasons for such actions", yet in all its dealings and activities, "it must act in public interest, and "an infraction of that duty is amenable to examination either in civil suit or in writ jurisdiction" and all its "actions uninformed by reason may be questioned as arbitrary in proceedings under Art. 226 or Art. 32". It has been ruled that "every activity of a public authority. . . . . must be informed by reasons and guided by the public interest"; "if governmental policy or action, even in contractual matters, fails to satisfy the test of reasonableness, it would be unconstitutional"; "every action of the Executive authority must be subject to rule of law and must be informed by reasons"; and "whatever be the activity of the public authority, it should meet the test of Art. 14" and therefore, "reasonableness" being, as pointed out in Maneka Gandhi ( AIR 1978 SC 597 ) (supra), a brooding omnipresence in Art. 14, whenever any State action, to the prejudice of any person, cannot be regarded as reasonable; "art. 14 springs in and judicial review strikes such an action down". ( 5 ) IF this be the position in law, as urged by Mr. Somenath Chatterjee on the strength of the decisions referred to above, then the action of the Respondents in declining to broadcast the appeal or the advertisement proposed by the Petitioners in Akashvani and Doordarshan would be liable to be struck down, if such refusal is not informed by justifiable reasons and cannot thus be treated as reasonable or to be in public interest. This position in law has not been, as it obviously cannot be, disputed and I must say with all fairness to Mr. Chowdhury, appearing for the Respondents, that he has not also seriously contested this position as a proposition of law, emanating from the binding decisions of our apex Court since 1974. But Mr. Roy Chowdhury, however, and also Mr. This position in law has not been, as it obviously cannot be, disputed and I must say with all fairness to Mr. Chowdhury, appearing for the Respondents, that he has not also seriously contested this position as a proposition of law, emanating from the binding decisions of our apex Court since 1974. But Mr. Roy Chowdhury, however, and also Mr. L. K. Chatterjee appearing for tire Respondents with him, have very strenuously urged that the action of the Respondents in refusing to accept the proposed broadcast was and is perfectly right and reasonable. Let me, therefore, look at the proposed appeal or advertisement, the reasons which prompted the petitioners to have the same broadcast and telecast and the grounds urged by the respondents in declining to do so. ( 6 ) NO one would ever deny that, as asserted by the petitioners in their affidavits, the State of West Bengal suffers from acute shortage of electricity and that any attempt to increase power-production in and for this State would be an act of great public utility. The petitioners have asserted that their proposed Thermal Power Project at Bakreshwar is one such venture, but that they are in dire need of necessary funds for proceeding with that Project. Whether Bakreshwar would ultimately materialise and fulfil its avowed purpose is a different matter. But Mr. Roy Chowdhury for the Respondents, has not, with his usual fairness, urged the case with the bellicosity of a combatant and has not urged that Bakreshwar is a gimmick or a stunt or a hoax or that the State of West Bengal does not direly need large-scale production of power or does not require large fund for the purpose other than what it has at its disposal. But he has mainly urged that even assuming arquendo that further Thermal Power Projects and the funds necessary therefor are dire necessities, as alleged, under the relevant provisions governing broadcast/telecast by Akashvani and Doordarshan, the appeal or the advertisement cannot be broadcast as it involves appeal for fund and that under the relevant provisions governing broadcast by these Media, no appeal for ands, except for Prime Minister's National Relief Fund and that too only in certain contingencies, can be permitted. ( 7 ) THE appeal or advertisement which the petitioners intend to broadcast is in Bangali and the English translation thereof, in Annexure-"c" is as hereunder:"you can also participate in two ways in implementing Bakreshwar Thermal Power Project. In response to the appeal of the Hon'ble Chief Minister, donate directly or through Bank in the Bakreshwar Thermal Power Project Fund. Invest in the Post Office Small Savings Scheme for the development of the State and for the sake of safety of your savings". The provisions on which the Respondents have relied, and which have also been very strongly relied upon by Mr. Roy Chowdhury in justification of the stand taken by the Respondents, are to be found in Paragraph 9 of the alleged AIR CODE in Annexure-"a" to the Respondents' affidavit-in-opposition as hereunder:-"broadcast on All India Radio by individuals will not permit :- 9. Appeal for funds, except for the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund at a tune of External Emergency or if the country is faced with Natural Calamity such as Floods, Earthquake or Cyclone". There should be no manner of doubt that the alleged Code-Annexure "a" - is never a Code in any Jurisprudential sense and not a piece of law, whether principal or subordinate. When I asked the learned Counsel for the Respondent to show as to how and in what manner and under whose or which authority the alleged Code was framed, the Respondents could place `before me only copies of certain loose typed sheets stiched together for my convenience, containing mostly some departmental correspondence and some-such documents, marked as Annexures-"a" to "e" in a separate bunch. This is obviously not a Code in any legal sense, Benthamian or otherwise; but then, any set of rules on any subject, even without any legislative element or legal trappings, may, and very often do, go by the name of a Code. And the Respondents also appear to be fully alive to the absence of any legal sanction behind their AIR CODE and have advisedly referred to it in paragraph 4 of their. affidavit as a "code of Practice and/or Convention" and, as would appear from Annexure-`b' to their affidavit, even the Minister concerned in answer to the question in Parliament has referred to it as "established convention". affidavit as a "code of Practice and/or Convention" and, as would appear from Annexure-`b' to their affidavit, even the Minister concerned in answer to the question in Parliament has referred to it as "established convention". ( 8 ) BORROWING from Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, we generally say-"what's in a Name?" According to Indian Scriptures, however, Name is of great significance - Namaibe Kevalam. But call it whatever you like, Code or Rule or Practice or Convention, Paragraph 9 as extracted hereinabove, permitting broadcast for appeal for fund only for Prime Minister's National Relief Fund and prohibiting broadcast for appeal for fund for any other Fund and for any other purpose and the refusal of the Respondents to accept the appeal for Fund by the Petitioners, are obviously State actions. And such actions, when challenged before this Court, can survive only if they satisfy the test of reasonableness and public interest as ruled by the Supreme Court in the series of decisions referred to at the outset. For if they are not reasonable, they would at once be shot down by Art. 14 endowed with activist magnitude, and widest amplitude by our apex Court. ( 9 ) SITTING here as a Judge of a High Court, I must, as I cannot but, respectfully apply the law declared by the Supreme Court, not only because of the express mandate in Art. 141 of the Constitution, but even dehors that Article, because of the doctrine of precedent made part of our law and applied almost with devotional rigidity. But I may, and this I say with due respect, frankly confess my failure to understand that if "reasonableness" is a brooding omnipresence in and spontaneously emanates from the Equality clause in Art. 14, then what led framers of the XIVth Amendment of the American Constitution to insert a "due process" clause also in that Amendment as they were incorporating Equality Clause also in that very Amendment and what also led the makers of the Indian Constitution to reject the "due process" Clause in Art. 21 after such a long and high-sounding debate in the Constituent Assembly, if the "due process" was already comprehended in the concept of "reasonableness" said to pervade Art. 14. ( 10 ) BE that as it may, after giving my most anxious thought to the question in issue, I have not been able to persuade myself to hold that shutting out all broadcasts for appeal for funds, except for Prime Minister's National Relief Fund and that too only in certain contingencies like National Emergency or. National Calamity, can at all be regarded to, be reasonable or in the public interest. I am entirely unable to accept that if the cause for which the appeal for fund is being made is laudable, benevolent and of great public utility, and donations from public are direly and immediately necessary, and the most effective and the quickests way to reach the public is through the Media of Akashvani and Doordarshan, and those who desire to broadcast the appeal are ready and willing to pay for the broadcast and to comply with all other formal requirements, the respondents can stillreasonablyrefuse such broadcast on the specious ground that it is theirpractice or conventiononly to permit broadcast for Prime Minister's National Relief Fund. The provision is patently unreasonable and nakedly discriminatory. Those who have conceived these provisions are not probably aware of the cultural history of our country where many of the greatest Institutions of the highest traditions or culture or rendering benevolent and philanthropic services to the nation or maintaining and continuing our cultural heritage, are the products of responses to appeals for fund for the public at large. I repeatedly asked the learned Counsel for the Respondents that if, for example, a State or a major part thereof is under a terrible catastrophe because of, say, natural calamity of terrific magnitude, and huge fund is immediately necessary to save the suffering humanity from imminent death and the Chief Minister of the State or Institutions of the highest repute like the Red Cross Society, or the Ramkrishna Mission or the Bharat Sevasram Sangha etc. having no fund or sufficient fund at disposal and finding no relief or no adequate relief to come forward from the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund, finds no other way but to make immediate appeal for Fund to the public to save the disaster, would it be at ail reasonable for the Respondents, who alone have and can have a network of Radio and Television transmission in the country, to refuse to broadcast such appeal only and solely on the specious ground that the appeal has not emanated from the Prime Minister or those who are in charge of his National Relief Fund? I could not get an answer. ( 11 ) MR. Roy Chowdhury has also urged that no writ should be issued in this case because the Akashvani and the Doordarshan authorities may not have the requisite time and space at their disposal for the proposed broadcast. This argument would deserve no consideration at all as it has never been the stand taken by the respondents that they have declined to accept the proposal for broadcast for want of space or time. If the stand taken by the respondents was that they were ready and willing to broadcast the appeal/advertisement but was not in a position to do so at an early date for want of time and space, the matter might have deserved consideration. But that not being the stand taken by the respondents at any stage in their correspondence or the affidavits, this contention need not detain me at all. ( 12 ) MR. Roy Chowdhury has also urged that if the write as prayed for are issued, it would open up floodgates for unmerited and unlimited broadcasts. This reminds me of the stereotyped criticism made by the conservatives and the status quoist when our appex Court was generating the concept of Public Interest Litigation and the criticism was that if Public Interest Litigations were allowed entries in Courts, the dockets of the Court would be inundated with baseless litigations. If a person or a matter has reasonable right of entry, we cannot shut the door on the alleged apprehension that undeserving entrants would also take chances to come in. As Tagore said, you cannot shut the door even to shut out untruth, because truth also would be shut out thereby. If a person or a matter has reasonable right of entry, we cannot shut the door on the alleged apprehension that undeserving entrants would also take chances to come in. As Tagore said, you cannot shut the door even to shut out untruth, because truth also would be shut out thereby. If persons or authorities approach these national Media of Akashvani and Doordarshan with claims for broadcasting their appeals or advertisements, it would be for the authorities to decide whether any such claim is unreasonable. As I have already indicated, if the claim for the broadcast is reasonable, but the respondents decline such broadcast and refuse to do so on grounds which are neither reasonable nor in the public interest, such refusal cannot but be struck down. ( 13 ) I have accordingly no other alternative than to strike down the provisions of paragraph 9 of the alleged AIR CODE as unreasonable and arbitrary and also to quash the decisions of the respondents not to broadcast the, appeal or advertisement for fund intended to be made by the petitioners for the Bakreswar Thermal Power Project and to direct the respondents not to withhold the broadcasting thereof on the ground noted in paragraph 9 of the alleged AIR CODE. Let appropriate writs be issued accordingly. Petition allowed.