Hegde, J.: In this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner-M. Lakshminarayan seeks two reliefs. The first relief asked for by him is to quash the authentication made by the first respondent in the declaration filed by the 3rd respondent on 29th April, 1965. Secondly, he seeks a direction from this Court to the first respondent requiring him to authenticate the declaration made by him on 26th April, 1965. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are these: On 26th April, 1965, the petitioner appeared before the first respondent and filed a declaration under section 5(2) of the Press and Registration of Books Act 1867 to be hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’, to the effect that he is the Editior Printer and Publisher of a Kannada newspaper bearing the title of “The Indian Express” The first respondent did not immediately authenticate that declaration. According tothe case of the first respondent he referred that declaration to the Press Registrar under the proviso to Section 6 of the Act. Meanwhile on 29th April, 1965 the 3rd respondent appeared before the first respondent and subscribed to a declaration that he is the Printer and Publisher of the newspaper called “The Indian Express” owned by the Indian Express (Madurai) Limited. That declaration was immediately authenticated by the first respondent. Aggrieved by these acts of the first respondent, the petitioner filed this application 9th June, 1965. Therein he prayed for an interim order restraining the 3rd respondent from punishing “The Indian Express” in Bangalore. The interim order prayed for was not granted At this stage, it may be mentioned that the first issue of “The Indian Express” was published at Bangalore on 10th June, 1965. The grievance of the petitioner is that while the first respondent improperly delayed authenticating the declaration made by him, he was in a dreadful hurry to authenticate the declaration made by the third respondent and thereby he allowed the third respondent to steal a march over him This conduct of the third respondent is said toamount to legal mala fide and therefore, it was said that the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the petition. On behalf of the first respondent, it was contended that in view of the proviso to section 6 of the ‘Act’, it was incumbent on the first respondent to refer the declaration of the petitioner to the Press Registrar and therefore it was not possible for him to authenticate that declaration immediately. But there was no such requirement in the case of the declaration of the third-respondent and that being so he was bound to authenticate that declaration without any delay. His case is that he did not favour any of the parties, but merely discharged his duties according to law. The case for respondents 2 and 3 is that “The Indian Express” was being published in Madras from the year 1932. In 1959, the Indian Express (Madurai) Ltd. was incorporated. That took over the publication of “The Indian Express” at Madurai, Vijayawada and Chittoor, one by one. “The Indian Express” Chittoor the printing and publication of which at Chittoor was started in 1960, was circulated in the districts surrounding Madras City and the whole of Mysore State as well as some adjacent parts of the Andhra State. This was under an arrangement by which so far as South India is concerned, the Editions at Madurai, Vijayawada and Chittoor, had each its compact area of circulation, laid down by the owner with reference to the easiest and quickest modes of transmission which could be arranged So far as Mysore State is concerned, the circulation of “The Indian Express” was about 20,000 copies. In December, 1963, the printing and publishing of “The Indian Express” in Madras City was started and thereafter, the Chittoor Edition primarily served Mysore State. Out of about 22,000 copies printed daily at Chittoor, about 20,000 copies went to Mysore State. Copies sent to Mysore State bore on the front page an imprint “Mysore State Morning Edition.” The system of sending them by van or other transport to Mysore State caused delay in Mysore State subscribers and readers getting their copies of the newspaper. Accordingly, ever since the Madras area was taken out of Chittoor Edition circulation, the owner started steps necessary to transfer the printing and publication of the newspaper “The Indian Express” from Chittoor to Bangalore. Even before this, land had been purchased in Bangalore, in 1960. The construction of the building was started in 1964. Accordingly, ever since the Madras area was taken out of Chittoor Edition circulation, the owner started steps necessary to transfer the printing and publication of the newspaper “The Indian Express” from Chittoor to Bangalore. Even before this, land had been purchased in Bangalore, in 1960. The construction of the building was started in 1964. In the same year installation of machinery and teleprinter lines were also arranged for. On 4th March, 1965, the owner of “The Indian Express” wrote to the Registrar of Newspapers about the transfer of “The Indian Express” from Chittoor to Bangalore. It is only after getting a reply from the Registrar of Newspapers, the 3rd respondent filed his declaration before the 1st Respondent on 29th April, 1965. Their grievance is that the petitioner with the sole idea of obstructing the publication of “The Indian Express” in Bangalore, had filed his declaration before the 1st respondent on 26th April, 1965. It was said on their behalf that it was not a bona fide move on the part of the petitioner, his idea being only to hinder the publication of “The Indian Express” in Bangalore. The first question that we have to decide is whether on the facts of this case, we should exercise our extraordinary Jurisdiction and grant any relief to the petitioner. As mentioned earlier it is the contention of respondents 2 and 3 that the petitioner, in filing his declaration on 26th April, 1965, was not actuated by genuine intention of publishing a newspaper; his sole idea was to hinder and obstruct the publication of “The Indian Express” at Bangalore. In this connection it may be mentioned that “The Indian Express” has a very wide circulation. According to the respondents, they have got a circulation of about 3 lakhs in the whole of India. It is a long standing paper. From the report of the Registrar of Newspapers, it is clear that it is one of the leading newspapers in the country. It is also not denied that from a fairly long time, the Chittoor Edition of “The Indian Express” bore the title “Mysore State Morning Edition.” The fact that about 20,000 copies of this paper were being circulated in the Mysore State is also not denied. It is proved that the owners of “The Indian Express” had purchased land in Bangalore in 1960. It is proved that the owners of “The Indian Express” had purchased land in Bangalore in 1960. It is also proved that they had commenced constructing a building in 1964 and that building was equipped in 1964 and 1965. From the material before us, we are left in no doubt as to the fact that “The Indian Express” Chittoor, was making vigorous preparations for shifting its business from Chittoor to Bangalore in or about the beginning of this year. Now coming to the declaration of the petitioner, there are certain curious features which have to be borne in mind. As seen from the declaration, it is a newspaper intended to be published in Kannada language. The being so, one should have normally expected that paper to have a Kannada title. But, on the other hand, a Kannada paper was trying to have English title. That circumstance has not been explained. More curious still is that paper should have tried to steal the name of a leading English daily. It is seen from the declaration filed by the petitioner that the newspaper that he was intending to publish was a “monthly” and that was to be sold at a price of 0-06 P. It may be further seen that the declaration in question was filed before the 1st respondent after the 3rd respondent wrote to the Registrar of Newspapers intimating him the fact that the owners of “The Indian Express” are intending to shift their Chittoor Edition to Bangalore. The significance of the fact that this Writ Petition was filed on 9th June, 1965, a day before the Bangalore Edition was to be published in Bangalore, cannot also be ignored. In these circumstances, the importance of the interim prayer prayed for viz., to restrain “The Indian Express” from publishing its edition in Bangalore ‘has also to be borne in mind. If one takes all these facts and circumstances into consideration, there is hardly any doubt that the petitioner’s move to declare himself as the Editor, Printer and Publisher of a Kannada paper bearing the title “The Indian Express” costing 0.06 Paise per edition appears to be a clumsy attempt to obstruct “The Indian Express” from publishing its edition in Bangalore. Therefore, there is force in the contention of Mr. Therefore, there is force in the contention of Mr. V.K. Thiruvenkatachari, the learned Counsel for respondents 2 and 3, that the petitioner has not come to this Court with clean hands and therefore he is not entitled to invoke out extraordinary Jurisdiction. Relief under Article 226 of the Constitution is a discretionary relief and the Court’s discretion will not be exercised to further evil designs. From the facts disclosed, we are satisfied that we would be stultifying our extraordinary jurisdiction if we grant the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner. Let us now take up the second relief prayed for by the petitioner, viz., that we should direct the first respondent to authenticate the declaration made by him. As seen earlier the question of authenticating that declaration is pending disposal. At the time the petitioner rushed to this Court with this Writ Petition, the matter was under correspondence between the first respondent and the Registrar of Newspapers. It cannot be said that there was any undue delay in the matter of disposing of that matter. Whether that declaration should be authenticated or not, depends upon the report of the Press Registrar. The authentication of a declaration under section 6 of the ‘Act’ is merely an administrative action. See the decision of the Madras High Court in K.N. Ganesh v. Chief Presidency Magistrate, Egmore, Madras and another1. The power under section 6 of the ‘Act’ being an administrative power, It is not amenable to our certiorari Jurisdiction. It is true that if we come to the conclusion that the action of the first respondent was a mala fide one then certainly it is open to us to set right matters by having recourse to our mandamus jurisdiction. As seen earlier, all that the first respondent has done is to refer the declaration of the petitioner to the Registrar of Newspapers. At the time this Writ Petition was filed, he was waiting for the information asked from the Registrar. Pending receipt of that information, he withheld the authentication asked for. We see nothing illegal in that. Nor do we think there was any inordinate delay in dealing with the matter. The. petitioner’s grievance that his letters were not replied to by the respondent cannot be accepted as correct in view of the statement of first respondent, a responsible officer. Pending receipt of that information, he withheld the authentication asked for. We see nothing illegal in that. Nor do we think there was any inordinate delay in dealing with the matter. The. petitioner’s grievance that his letters were not replied to by the respondent cannot be accepted as correct in view of the statement of first respondent, a responsible officer. Therefore, the second relief, asked for by the petitioner, has to be rejected primarily on the ground that the petitioner had rushed to this Court prematurely. Now coming to the first relief, asked for by the petitioner, viz., that we should declare that the authentication made by the first respondent, on the declaration filed by the third respondent on 29th April, 1965, as an invalid authentication, a decision on this question depends upon the true interpretation to be placed on the proviso to section 6 of the ‘Act.’ The portion of section 6 of the ‘Act’ which is material for our present purpose, reads as follows: 6. 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 slid 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 enquiry 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 State..........” Until 1955, the proviso quoted above was not there. Therefore, till then, it was the duty of the District Magistrate to authenticate every declaration made, if it was inthe prescribed form. He had no option in the matter. His duty was merely ministerial. The proviso in question excepting the words “is, on inquiry from the Press Registrar, satisfied” was incorporated by Act LV of 1955. But the words “is, on inquiry from the Press Registrar, satisfied” were incorporated into the proviso by Act XXVI of 1960. He had no option in the matter. His duty was merely ministerial. The proviso in question excepting the words “is, on inquiry from the Press Registrar, satisfied” was incorporated by Act LV of 1955. But the words “is, on inquiry from the Press Registrar, satisfied” were incorporated into the proviso by Act XXVI of 1960. The true effect of the proviso, in our judgment, is that every declaration made under section 5(2) of the ‘Act.‘unless it relates to a newspaper owned by a person, who is already publishing a newspaper having the same title, should be referred to the Press Registrar for the purpose mentioned in the Proviso. But, if the declaration relates to a newspaper, owned by a person, who is already publishing another newspaper either in that State or in the language in which the proposed newspaper is intended to be published, bearing the same or similar title as that proposed to be given to the newspaper to which the declaration relates, then no such reference to the Press Registrar is necessary. To such a case, the main part of section 6 of the ‘Act’ applies, the proviso being inapplicable. To put it differently, the proviso in question is an exception to the main section. The proviso does not govern the case of a new edition of an existing newspaper. As seen earlier, the Bangalore edition of “The Indian Express” is owned by the Indian Express (Madurai) Limited. That company also owns the Madras, Vijayawada and Madurai editions of “The Indian Express.” Hence, there was no need to refer the declaration filed by the third respondent to the Press Registrar. It was contended by Mr. E.S. Venkataramaiah, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, that the title “The Indian Express” is not only given to some of the newspapers published by the Indian Express (Madurai) Limited, but is also to two other newspapers viz., “The Indian Express”, Bombay, and “The Indian Express”, Delhi. According to him, “The Indian Express”, Bombay, is owned by a separate company. Similar is the case with “The Indian Express,” Delhi. But according to respondents 2 and 3. The Indian Express (Madurai) Limited as well as “The Indian Express,” Delhi, are the subsidiaries of “The Indian Express” Bombay, and all these Companies are owned by the same owner. This contention appears to be factually correct. But even if we had accepted the contention of Mr. But according to respondents 2 and 3. The Indian Express (Madurai) Limited as well as “The Indian Express,” Delhi, are the subsidiaries of “The Indian Express” Bombay, and all these Companies are owned by the same owner. This contention appears to be factually correct. But even if we had accepted the contention of Mr. Venkataramiah that the above mentioned Companies are different Companies, then also the 3rd Respondent’s declaration was bound to be authenticated as “The Indian Express” Madurai was already publishing “The Indian Express” at Madurai, Madras and Vijayawada. The requirement of section 6 of the ‘Act’ is that the owner of the proposed paper must be publishing a newspaper bearing the same or similar tide. The fact that there are other newspapers bearing the same or similar title to that, to which the declaration relates, is immaterial so long as its owner publishes a newspaper bearing the title in question. Assuming that the Delhi Indian Express, the Bombay Indian Express and the Madurai Indian Express are independent entities, all these three entities are entitled to publish their editions in Bangalore. By saying that we do not mean to say anything about their respective rights under other provisions of law. But such a situation is not hit by the proviso in question. In this view, it is unnecessary for us to consider the contention of respondents 2 and 3 that “The Indian Express,” Delhi. “The Indian Express” Bombay and the editions of “The Indian Express” published by the Indian Express (Madurai) Limited are owned by the same owner. That being so, we need not refer to several decisions cited at the bar bearing on the question as to what extent the Courts can tear the veil and look at the real face of an incorporated company. Mr. Venkataramaiah contended that in view of the authentication of the 3rd respondent’s declaration, it may not now be open to the first respondent to. authenticate the petitioner’s declaration, even if the Press Registrar’s report is in his favour. It may be so. But, that does not alter the legal position. The grievance of the petitioner that the action of the first respondent is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, is without substance. It is not the contention of the petitioner that section 6 of the ‘Act’ is an invalid provision. He accepts the validity of that provision. It may be so. But, that does not alter the legal position. The grievance of the petitioner that the action of the first respondent is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, is without substance. It is not the contention of the petitioner that section 6 of the ‘Act’ is an invalid provision. He accepts the validity of that provision. We have earlier ascertained the true scope of that provision. If an officer acts in accordance with a valid provision of law, it cannot be said; that his action is violative of the Equality Clause. Mr. Venkataramaiah, at this stage, reminds us that in his petition the petitioner had contended that the first respondent, by his act, has infringed his fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed to him under Article 19(1)(a)of the Constitution. This contention was not urged at the hearing. We do not think that there is any merit in this contention. To repeat, it is not the contention of Mr. Venkataramaiah that section 6 of the ‘Act’ is an invalid provision. Therefore, any action taken by an authority, in accordance with the provisions of law cannot be said to infringe the fundamental right guaranteed to a citizen under Article 19 of the Constitution. The petitioner’s right to freedom of speech and expression is regulated by the provisions contained in the ‘Act’ and so long as those regulations are not said to be unreasonable regulations or that the same does not serve the interest of the general public, no complaint can be made as to the infringement of the right to freedom of speech or expression. We are in agreement with the learned Advocate-General and Mr. Thiruvenkatachari that the declaration made by the third respondent was bound to be authenticated by the first Respondent without any inquiry. Further, we are also in agreement with Mr. Thiruvenkatachari that even if the first Respondent had authenticated the declaration of the petitioner on 26th April, 1965, itself, he was still bound to authenticate the declaration of the third respondent made on 29th April, 1965, for the reasons already mentioned. For the reasons mentioned above, this petition fails and the name is dismissed with costs (one set for respondent-1 and another set for respondents 2 and 3), Advocates fee Rs. 100. It is ordered that the petitioner do pay to the First Respondent a sum of Rs. For the reasons mentioned above, this petition fails and the name is dismissed with costs (one set for respondent-1 and another set for respondents 2 and 3), Advocates fee Rs. 100. It is ordered that the petitioner do pay to the First Respondent a sum of Rs. 100 (One Hundred) and to the Respondents 2 and 3 a sum of Rs. 108 (One Hundred and Eight) only being the amount of costs incurred in this petition in this Court. V.S. ----- Petition dismissed.