K.S. Hegde, J.- In this Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner asks this Court: (i) to forbid respondents 1 to 3 from granting to respondents, 4, 5 and/or 6 for Indian Express and Sunday Standard. Bangalore, any newsprint or newsprint quota, the said papers being new newspapers added to the existing chain of Indian Express Newspapers; (ii) to forbid respondents4 and 5, their servants and agents and any of their subsidiary Companies from diverting, using or otherwise appropriating for Indian Express and/or Sunday Standard, Bangalore the newsprint allotted to Indian Express or Sunday Standard published from any other centre or to any other newspaper owned or controlled by respondents 4 or 5; and (iii) to direct respondents 1 to 3 to prevent any such diversion, use or appropriation, by issuing a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction. The petitioner is a Private Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act. It has its registered office in Bangalore. It is the proprietor of the English Daily ‘Deccan Herald’ and the Kannada Daily ‘Prajavani’. Boths these papers, are published from Bangalore. The fourth-respondent company is a subsidiary of the fifth respondent. All the shares of the fourth respondent-company are owned by the fifth respondent-company. The fifth respondent has also two other subsidiary companies, carrying on business as newspaper publishers, namely, Express Newspapers Limited, New Delhi and Andhra Parabha Limited, Vijayawada, all the shares of both being owned by the fifth respondent. Between them and their subsidiaries, respondents 4 and 5 are the proprietors of a chain of newspapers published from several centres in India. In this chain are included the Indian Express English daily and the Sunday Standard, which is its Sunday edition. Till 10th June, 1965, these papers were published from six entires, viz. Madras, Chittoor, Madurai, Vijayawada, Bombay and Delhi. The others in this chain are Dinamani, Andhra Prabha, Loksatta, Financial Express, Screen, etc. The bulk of the newsprint consumed in India by all newspapers is imported. The National Newsprint and Paper Mills Ltd. (Nepa Mills), situated at Nepanagar, Madhya Pradesh, also produces some newsprint. Newsprint indigenously manufactured as well as imported is a controlled commodity, as is also White Printing Paper used by newspapers, and the distribution and use thereof is regulated by the Government of India, in exercise of their powers under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Newsprint indigenously manufactured as well as imported is a controlled commodity, as is also White Printing Paper used by newspapers, and the distribution and use thereof is regulated by the Government of India, in exercise of their powers under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The Central Government has promulgated an order entitled “Newsprint Control Order, 1962,” under the said Act. Every year, the Government of India announces its Import Policy for newsprint through an authorised publication, known in common parlance as the Red Book, and also through Gazette Notifications. The Policy for the year 1965-66 was published in the Gazette of India by Public Notice No. 28-ITC (PN) 65, dated 21st April, 1965. Clause 3(5) of that Order requires that in issuing an Authorisation for consumption or use of newsprint, the Controller shall have regard to the principles laid down in the Import Control policy announced by the Central Government. Apart from what is allotted to newspapers by the Government of India, newsprint or White Printing Paper cannot be secured otherwise. The entitlement of individual newspapers for newsprint is determined by the Registrar of Newspapers for India (respondent 2 herein), mainly on the following basis, i.e., (i) page area and average number of pages per publishing day in 1957; (ii) regularity of publication during 1964; and (iii) average circulation during April, 1961-March, 1962. The ‘policy’ declares that it will not be possible to allocate any quota of newsprint to newspaper chains, groups and multiple units for publication of new periodicals and newspapers. In the case of new newspapers, the ‘policy’ provides that they will be allowed an initial quota to develop and build up an average circulation to the maximum limit of 5,000 copies of 8 pages per publishing day, during the first 3 months after the commencement of publication. The procedure prescribed is that Actual Users requiring newsprint for newspapers should submit applications to the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, through the Registrar of Newspapers. The Registrar of Newspapers determines the entitlement of each individual newspaper on the basis of the Certified statistics such as page area, average number of pages and circulation. Clause 4, of the Newsprint Control Order requires that the newsprint shall be utilised only for the publication of the newspapers periodicals for which it is authorised and shall not be diverted to any other use. Clause 4, of the Newsprint Control Order requires that the newsprint shall be utilised only for the publication of the newspapers periodicals for which it is authorised and shall not be diverted to any other use. The case for the petitioner is that every edition of newspaper is a separate newspaper; the entitlement for each newspaper is separately assessed; in cases where a newspaper is printed and published from different centres, although by a common owner or under the same name, the entitlement of each of such newspapers bearing individual registration numbers, is determined separately and on the basis of its own circulation; it would be illegal for the Printer and Publisher of one newspaper to divert or use the newsprint allotted for that paper to the newspaper printed by some other Printer and Publisher, the name or ownership of the paper being immaterial for that purpose. The petitioner further alleges that by clever devices, the Indian Express chain is being lengthened from time to time, in spite of the professed policy of the Central Government to eliminate monopolies; in Madras, it commenced, publication in 1932; in 1957, it started issuing from Madurai; in April, 1959, the publication at Madras was stopped; but in the same year, the Indian Express began to appear from Vijayawada in the State of Andhra Pradesh; in 1960, yet another newspaper by the same name began to be published from Chittoor in the State of Andhra Pradesh; in 1963, the Indian Express was published again from Madras; all those publications, viz., Indian Express, Madurai, Vijayawada, Chittoor and Madras, are owned by the fourth respondent-company; thus, what was one newspaper at Madras, proliferated into four newspapers in South India; to the chain is now being added one more newspaper by the same name from Bangalore, together with its Sunday edition namely the Sunday Standard. It is also alleged by the petitioner that Sri Ramanath Goenka the Chairman of the fourth respondent-company, is controlling the affairs of this entire chain-compendiously called Express Group of Papers and he wields unbounded influence with the Ministry in the State of Mysore, among others, with the result he has succeeded in diverting from the petitioner’s paper all general advertisement of the Mysore Government to Indian Express, Chittoor, what is more, he has also secured from the Mysore Government a large plot of land in one of the best, localities of Bangalore in close proximity to Vidhana Soudha, at a nominal price, and, upon this land, he has put up a multi-storeyed building for the Indian Express, Bangalore. It is said on behalf of the petitioner that the Audit Report, 1964, of the Government of Mysore discloses that the transaction of the sale of the land to the Indian Express, by the Government of Mysore, has resulted in loss of Rs. 3.07 lakhs to the Government. The sixth respondent, who is an employee of the fourth respondent, has filed a declaration before the District Magistrate, Bangalore, under the Press and Registration of Books Act, on 29th April, 1965, declaring himself as the Printer and Publisher of a newspaper by the name of the Indian Express and also of its Sunday Edition, viz., Sunday Standard. Therein the fourth respondent is declared to be the owner of both these newspapers. In column 11 of the said declaration it is stated; “‘Caittoor publication being shifted to Bangalore. Registrar of Newspapers in India, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, New Delhi, informed.’ The price of that paper is fixed at 10 paise and that of the Sunday Standard, 20 Paise per copy. These papers will have the same number of pages as that of the Chittoor edition.” The case for the petitioner is that it is incompetent for the fourth respondent to shift its Chittoor edition to Bangalore, further it is illegal for the respondents to divert for use at Bangalore, the newspaper quota allotted to the Indian Express, Chittoor, or other centres, or of any other newspaper owned and controlled by the fourth and fifth respondents. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Indian Express, Bangalore, is, indisputably, a new link in the Express chain, and as such, is entitled to newsprint on that basis only; hence, the grant to respondents 4 to 6 of newsprint quota directly or the diversion of newsprint allotted to the Printer or Publisher of any of them for Indian Express published from other centres to Bangalore would be unlawful, being contrary to the provisions of the ‘policy’ and the Newsprint Control Order that now exists; in the event, however, of it being held for any reason that the provisions of the Red Book and the Newsprint Control Order enable such grant or diversion then, the said provisions would clearly be discriminatory and are liable to be struck down as being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. In paragraph 17 of the affidavit of the petitioner, it is alleged that in order to circumvent the law and secure newsprint for Indian Express and Sunday Standard Bangalore, the fourth respondent has adopted the clever device of making it appear that the Chittoor publications of Indian Express and Sunday Standard had been shifted to Bangalore, so that having once secured a foothold, insidiously he can regularise a large allotment of newsprint quota which would never be available by straight means; the statement that Indian Express and Sunday Standard, Chittoor had been shifted to Bangalore, is patently false; the Indian Express, Chittoor (including the Sunday edition) started publication in 1960; in 1963 the Indian Express began to re-appear from Madras, and then, it was stated that Indian Express Chittoor, was being shifted to Madras, quite apart from the fact that no shifting is warranted or authorised by the Import Control Policy or the Newsprint Control Order, it is inconceivable now, the Chittoor publications, which had been shifted to Madras, there could be another shifting of the same to Bangalore, even as Indian Express, Madras, continues to appear from Madras. It is said that in actual practice, Indian Express, Bangalore, including the Sunday edition, is altogether a new newspaper; as such it has to be registered separately with the Registrar of Newspapers for India under the Press and Registration of Books Act and the Rules framed thereunder; that publication has to be preceded by a separate declaration by the Printer and Publisher, as, in fact, it has been done by the sixth respondent; the theory of shifting has been ingeniously conceived for securing newsprint which the sixth respondent would not be able to get by lawful means. It is further said that the Printer and Publisher of Indian Express and Sunday Standard, Chittoor, was one Mr. S.V. Swamy; the Printer and Publisher of Indian Express, Bangalore, is the sixth respondent; the sixth respondent filed his declaration under the Press and Registration of Books Act, on 29th April, 1965; Mr. Swamy filed his ceasing declaration on 10th June, 1965; for the purpose of Wages and conditions of service under the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955, each newspaper is treated and classified as a distinct and separate entity even though it may bear the same title or may belong to a common owner. For all these reasons it was contended that Indian Express, Bangalore, is a new newspaper and has to be treated as such for the allotment of newsprint. The petitioner complaints that the second respondent connived and manoeuvred with the fourth respondent and the failure on the part of the second respondent to enforce the provisions of law has resulted in a discriminative treatment meted out to the petitioner imperilling its very existence. The petitioner complaints that the second respondent connived and manoeuvred with the fourth respondent and the failure on the part of the second respondent to enforce the provisions of law has resulted in a discriminative treatment meted out to the petitioner imperilling its very existence. It was said that the Deccan Herald has been restricted to an average of 8-57 pages per day; it is not given any more newsprint for publishing larger number of pages; but respondents 4 to 6, by devious processes are allowed to publish Indian Express, Bangalore, including the Sunday Standard, with an average of 11.4 pages, keeping the price at 10 paise per copy, on week days, which is same as for Deccan Herald; hence, naturally, an average reader will prefer to buy Indian Express, as he gets more pages for the same price; thus Indian Express, Bangalore, although a new newspaper, by being given the preferential treatment by respondents 1 to 3 and having secured the patronage of the State Government, is allowed to start with all the advantages, privileges and quotas as if it is an existing newspaper, and thereby enabled to crush the petitioner’s paper at Bangalore. It was also alleged that the second respondent did not deal with the complaint of the petitioner made on 17th April, 1965, expeditiously and from that an inference is to be drawn that the second respondent was colluding with the fourth respondent. On behalf of respondents 1 to 3, Mr. R. Srinivasan, Registrar of Newspapers for India, has filed a counter-affidavit. In his counter-affidavit, he has raised certain preliminary objections to the maintainability of the petition. According to him as no part of the cause of action arises in the State of Mysore, this petition is not maintainable. He also took the stand that in as much as nolegal right is either involved or infringed the petitioner cannot ask for a Writ of mandamus from this. Court. According to him as no part of the cause of action arises in the State of Mysore, this petition is not maintainable. He also took the stand that in as much as nolegal right is either involved or infringed the petitioner cannot ask for a Writ of mandamus from this. Court. Dealing with the allegation of discriminatory treatment, he submitted that it is not the case of the petitioner that he had also applied for permission for diversion or adjustment of quota of newsprint allotted to him and that the said permission had been refused, nor does the petitioner complain that any fresh or extra quota of newsprint had been allotted to respondents 4 to 6, therefore, the question of any discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution cannot legitimately arise. In his counter-affidavit, it was further stated that the petitioner had not pointed out any statutory right in it to require respondents 1 to 3 to prohibit shifting of Indian Express from Chittoor to Bangalore or to the consequent use of the newsprint allotted to it, at the new place of publication, nor, in fact is any such statutory duty enjoined on the second respondent; what is more, none of the respondents 1 to 3 have any power under law to enforce any such prohibition as required by the petitioner. According to respondents 1 to 3, what, in effect, the petitioner seeks, as could be made out from the petitioners’ affidavit, is the intervention of this Court, to prevent competition for its business by the advent of the newspaper of respondents 4 to 6 at Bangalore, and the petitioner cannot invite this Court to perform such functions, in a. petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. It was said on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 that Indian Express, Bangalore, is not a new edition; it was merely shifting of the Chittoor edition to Bangalore, and therefore the Indian Express, Bangalore, cannot be considered as a new newspaper; though separate declaration was filed by the Printer and Publisher as required by the Press and Registration of Books Act, the registration number of a newspapers did not change when the place of its publication was changed; newsprint allocation is periodically made to each newspaper as such and not to the Printer or Publisher thereof, a newspaper may change its printer or publisher but nonetheless it will be entitled to obtain its newsprint quota as long as it continues the publication under valid declaration; similarly, the ownership of a newspaper may change, but still the newspaper will be entitled to its newsprint quota; the above position is, however, subject to the provision in the Newsprint Import Policy that no newsprint will be allocated to chains, groups and multiple units for publication of new periodicals and newspapers. The Registrar of Newspapers swears that in response to the representation made by a delegation of the Indian Eastern Newspaper Society to the Union Minister for Information and Broadcasting on the 11th November, 1963, and also in response to certain individual representations received by him it was decided bythe Government of India that there would be no objection to the transfer of newsprint and white printing paper as between publications bearing the same name and published from different centres in India; that latitude was permitted not only to enable the newspaper to utilise their quotas of newsprint and white printing paper to their maximum advantage, but also to enable multi-edition newspapers to adjust their circulation between the various centres of publication within the total quota granted to the newspaper. He further stated that in pursuance of that decision, permission was given by him to such multi-edition newspapers as had asked for permission to redistribute the allotted quota but no extra quota of newsprint was given to any multi-edition newspaper including respondents 4 and 5 who also asked for permission to adjust the circulation between different editions only; the above said latitude was afforded to the newspapers with due regard to the principles laid down in the Newsprint Import Policy. The second respondent denied the fact that Mr. The second respondent denied the fact that Mr. Ramnath Goenka or his relations wield any influence over respondents 1 to 3. According to him, the Newsprint Control Order neither prohibits shifting of the publication of a news paper from one place to another nor the use of the already allotted newsprint quota for the newspaper at the new place after shifting. He also denied the allegation of the petitioner that Chittoor edition of the "Indian Express" had already been transferred to Madras once in 1963 and therefore, the same edition could not be transferred to Bangalore. According to him, the Madras edition of the "Indian Express" started in 1963 as a separate edition of "Indian Express" and not by shifting the Chittoor edition to Madras; no new newsprint quota was allowed to the Madras edition by the Government of India since the same was considered to be an addition to the existing chain of newspapers; in fact, the proprietors of "Indian Express" applied to the Government of India for additional quota of newsprint to the new editions at Madras on its commencement of its publication in December, 1963; that was not agreed to as under the "policy" no newsprint quota could be allowed to chains, groups and multiple units for publication of new newspapers; however permission was granted for the diversion of a part of the quota sanctioned for the Chittoor edition to the new edition of "Indian Express" at Madras. The second respondent also averred that for the purpose of the wages under the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955, each newspaper might be treated and classified as a separate unit for the purposes of administration of that Act; it does not a fortiori follow that for all purposes, each newspaper should be treated as a separate entity. Dealing with the allegation of the petitioner that Bangalore edition would prove a menace to the continued existence of the "Deccan Herald", the second respondent stated that even if it should, there is no law which enables the respondents 1 to 3 tointerfere with the freedom of newspapers in changing their centres of publication; in the absence of any such law, respondents 1 to 3 could not in any way object to the shifting of the Chittoor edition of "Indian Express" to Bangalore. He denied the allegation of the petitioner that the petitioner’s letter written on 17th April, 1965, was not replied to. He says that after examining the contents of the letter, he wrote to the petitioner on 10th July, 1965, regretting that under the newsprint allocation policy, it was not possible to increase in the pages to the newspapers already publishing 8 or more pages and also mentioning that a newspaper was however free to adjust its page’ area and circulation within the authorised newsprint quota. On behalf of respondents 4 to 6, the sixth respondent filed a counter-affidavit Therein, he contended that the Bangalore edition of "Indian Express" is not a new newspaper; all that has happened is that the owners of the "Indian Express", had shifted the place of printing and publication from Chittoor to Bangalore. On behalf of respondents 4 to 6, the sixth respondent filed a counter-affidavit Therein, he contended that the Bangalore edition of "Indian Express" is not a new newspaper; all that has happened is that the owners of the "Indian Express", had shifted the place of printing and publication from Chittoor to Bangalore. He has stated in his affidavit that the "Indian Express" was being published in Madras from the year 1932; in 1959 the ‘‘Indian Express" (Madurai) Limited was incorporated and took over the publication of the "Indian Express" at Madurai, Vijayawada and Chittoor one by one; The "Indian Express", Chittoor edition, the printing and publication of which at Chittoor was started in 1960, was circulating in districts surrounding Madras City and the whole of Mysore State, as well as some adjacent parts of 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 own compact area of circulation laid down by the owner with reference to 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 the Mysore State; out of about 22,000 copies printed daily at Chittoor, about 20,000 went to Mysore State; the 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 subscribers and readers getting their copies of the newspapers meant and printed specially for Mysore State; accordingly, ever since Madras area was taken out of Chittoor edition circulation, the owner started the steps necessary to transfer the printing and publication of the newspapers from Chittoor to Bangalore; even before this, land had been bought in Bangalore in 1960; the building was started in 1964; in 1964 installation of printing and machinary and teleprinter lines were also arranged for. His case is that neither the Policy Statements nor the provisions of the Newsprint Control Order, 1962, prohibit the transfer of a newspaper from one place to another. His case is that neither the Policy Statements nor the provisions of the Newsprint Control Order, 1962, prohibit the transfer of a newspaper from one place to another. He also took the stand that the Policy Statement is not law, and as such no one can seek assistance from the same to compel the Government of India or any one else to adhere to the policy laid down therein. According to him, it is merely an executive policy declaration for the guidance of the subordinates. Respondents 4 to 6 further took the contention that it is not open to any person whether a consumer of newsprint or otherwise to resort to legal proceedings to compel the Union of India or the Chief Controller of Imports or indeed any governmental authority to take disciplinary or criminal proceedings against another person for alleged violation of law. It was urged that the petitioner cannot invoke the protection of Articles 14 or 19 of the Constitution. In the reply affidavit the petitioner has reiterated the stand taken by it in the original petition and joined issue with respondents on the contentions taken by them In their pleadings. The principal question that falls for decision is whether the "Indian Express" Bangalore, is a new newspaper. According to the respondents, it is not a new newspaper; all that has happened is that the proprietors of the paper have shifted the place of publication from Chittoor to Bangalore. It was asserted that after the Madras edition of the "Indian Express" commenced publication in 1963, the Chittor edition was primarily serving the Mysore State; out of about 22,000 copies printed daily at Chittoor, about 20,000 were being sent to the Mysore State and those copies bore on the front page an imprint "Mysore State Morning Edition"; the system of sending them by van or other transport to Bangalore or other areas of the Mysore State caused a great deal of inconvenience apart from additional cost; and therefore, the Proprietors of the paper decided to shift the place of publication from Chittoor to Bangalore. The Bangalore edition of the "Indian Express" commenced publication on 10th June, 1965. It is not denied that the Chittoor edition was last published on 9th June, 1965. The Publisher of the Chittoor edition Mr. Swamy, filed his ceasing declaration on 10th June, 1965. The Bangalore edition of the "Indian Express" commenced publication on 10th June, 1965. It is not denied that the Chittoor edition was last published on 9th June, 1965. The Publisher of the Chittoor edition Mr. Swamy, filed his ceasing declaration on 10th June, 1965. The sixth respondent, the Printer and Publisher of the Bangalore edition of the "Indian Express", in his declaration made before the District Magistrate, Bangalore, has definitely stated that the paper that is going to be published from Bangalore is not a new newspaper but the Chittoor edition is being shifted to Bangalore. Even before he made the declaration on 29th April, 1965, he had intimated the second respondent about the change in the place of the publication. Hence, it is established that the paper that was being published in Chittoor is now being published at Bangalore. "Newspaper" is undoubtedly a property. As observed (at page 558 of Halsbury’s Laws of England, Third Edition, Voulme 30) by Lord Simonds: "Speaking generally, the expression ‘property’ with regard to a newspaper may include several things: It may include the copyright in numbers already published and the right of reproduction, or it may include the plant and materials necessary for its production, but, for the purpose of this part of the title, the expression applies only to the right of publication under a particular name." In paragraph 1070 of that volume it is further observed: "The right to publish a newspaper under a particular name is property and subject to the ordinary law of property. It is personal property, and as such, on the bankruptcy or death of the proprietor, passes to the trustee in bankruptcy or to the personal representative, as the case may be." A right to publish a newspaper is an asset. By and large, that right is similar to other rights to property. Therefore, unless there is any law prohibiting the shifting of the venue of publication of a newspaper, it has to be held that Proprietors of a newspaper have a right to change its place of publication. It may also be noted that a newspaper is owned by some one, may be a single Proprietor or a group of Proprietors or a company. Its Printer or the Publisher need not be its owner. The rights and duties of a Printer or a Publisher as such are those prescribed by law. It may also be noted that a newspaper is owned by some one, may be a single Proprietor or a group of Proprietors or a company. Its Printer or the Publisher need not be its owner. The rights and duties of a Printer or a Publisher as such are those prescribed by law. In his capacity as a Printer or publisher he has no Proprietory interest in the newspaper of which he is the Printer or Publisher. A change of Printer or Publisher does not affect the ownership of the newspaper. Some of the duties of Printers or Publishers of newspapers are set out in the Press and Registration of Books Act 1867, section 5 of that Act says: "........(2) The printer and publisher of every such newspaper shall appear in person or by agent authorised in this behalf in accordance with rules made under section 20, before a District, Presidency or Sub-divisional Magistrate within whose local jurisdiction such newspaper shall be printed or published, and shall make and subscribe, in duplicate, the following declaration: "I, A.B., declare, that I am the Printer (or publisher or printer and publisher) of the newspaper entitled and to be printed or published or to be printed and published as the case may be at......" And the last blank in this form of declaration shall be filled up with a true and precise account of the premises where the printing or publication is conducted. (2-A) Every declaration under rule (2) shall specify the title of the newspaper, the language in which it is to be published and the periodicity of its publication and shall contain such other particulars as may be prescribed. (2-B) Where the printer or publisher of a newspaper making a declaration wider rule (2) is not the owner thereof, the declaration shall specify the name of the owner and shall also be accompanied by an authority in writing from the owner authorising such person to make and subscribe such declaration. (2-C). A declaration in respect of a newspaper made under rule (2) and authenticated under section 6 shall be necessary before the newspaper can be published. (2-D) Where the title of any newspaper or its language or the periodicity of its publication is changed, the declaration shall cease to have effect and a new declaration shall be necessary before the publication of the newspaper can be continued. (2-D) Where the title of any newspaper or its language or the periodicity of its publication is changed, the declaration shall cease to have effect and a new declaration shall be necessary before the publication of the newspaper can be continued. (2-E) As often as the ownership of a newspaper is changed a new declaration shall be necessary. (3) As often as the place of printing or publication is changed, a new declaration shall be necessary. Provided that where the change is for a period not exceeding thirty days and the place of printing or publication after the change is within the local jurisdiction of the Magistrate referred to in rule (2), no new declaration shall be necessary if- (a) a statement relating to the change is furnished to the said Magistrates within twenty-four hours thereof: and (b) the printer or publisher or the printer and publisher of the newspaper continues to be the same. (4) As often as the printer or the publisher who shall have made such declaration as aforesaid shall leave India for a period exceeding ninety days or where such printer or publisher is by infirmity or otherwise rendered incapable of carrying out his duties for a period exceeding ninety days in circumsstances not involving the vacation of his appointment, a new declaration shall be necessary. * * * * * * * (8) Every existing declaration in respect of a newspaper shall be cancelled by the Magistrate before whom a new declaration is made and subscribed in respect of the same. * * * * * * * (8) Every existing declaration in respect of a newspaper shall be cancelled by the Magistrate before whom a new declaration is made and subscribed in respect of the same. Provided that no person who does not ordinarily reside in India, or who has not attained majority in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Majority Act, 1875, or of the law to which he is subject in respect of the attainment of majority, shall be permitted to make the declaration prescribed by this section, nor shall any such person edit a newspaper." The portion of section 6 of that Act, material for our present purpose reads: "Each of the two originals of every declaration so made and subscribed as aforesaid, shall be authenticated by the signature and official seal of the Magistrate before whom the said decolortaion 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 inquiry 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 same State................" From the above provisions, it is clear that the Printer and the Publisher of a newspaper not need not be its owner. That does mean that a owner of a newspaper cannot declare himself as its Printer or Publisher or both. But, in his capacity as a Printer or Publisher, he acquires no proprietory interest in the newspaper. This conclusion flows from sub-section (3) of section 5, the first proviso to section 5 and the declaration made in Form I under rule 3 of the Registration of Newspapers (Central) Rules 1956. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that one Mr. Swamy was the Printer and Publisher of the Chittoor edition of the "Indian Express", whereas the sixth respondent is the Printer and Publisher of the "Indian Express" of Bangalore; the sixth respondent filed his declaration under the Press and Registration of Books Act,. 1867, before the District Magistrate,Bangalore, on 29th April, 1965, whereas Mr. Swamy was the Printer and Publisher of the Chittoor edition of the "Indian Express", whereas the sixth respondent is the Printer and Publisher of the "Indian Express" of Bangalore; the sixth respondent filed his declaration under the Press and Registration of Books Act,. 1867, before the District Magistrate,Bangalore, on 29th April, 1965, whereas Mr. Swamy filed his ceasing declaration on 10th June, 1965; hence we should conclude that the Bangalore edition of the "Indian Express" is a new newspaper. In other words it was urged that the "Indian Express" Bangalore, had come into existence on 29th April, 1965, whereas the "Indian Express", Chittoor, ceased to exist only on 10th June, 1965; hence the Bangalore edition cannot be considered as a continuation of the Chittoor edition. We are unable to accede to this contention. Both Mr. Swamy and the sixth respondent are the servants of the owners of the "Indian Express". Therefore, the fact that there was a change in the Printer and the Publisher of the "Indian Express" does not affect the identity of that newspaper. Further, a new-paper does not come into existence on the date the declaration prescribed under section 5(2) of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, is made. Sub-section (5) of section 5 of that Act provides that every declaration made in respect of a newspaper shall be void, where the newspaper does not commence publication within six weeks of the authentication of the declaration under section 6, in the case of a newspaper to be published once a week or offender. That means that a newspaper in respect of which a declaration has been made under section 5(2) can be published within six weeks from the date of the declaration. A declaration under section 5(2) is not synonymous with the publication of the newspaper in respect of which that declaration is made. The publication of that paper in a particular place takes place on the day it is, in fact, published in that place. In the instant case, the publication of the "Indian Express", commenced in Bangalore on 10th June, 1965. We do not think that the provisions of the Press and Registration of Books Act lend any support to the petitioner’s contention that the Bangalore edition of the "Indian Express" is a new newspaper. In the instant case, the publication of the "Indian Express", commenced in Bangalore on 10th June, 1965. We do not think that the provisions of the Press and Registration of Books Act lend any support to the petitioner’s contention that the Bangalore edition of the "Indian Express" is a new newspaper. Our attention was not invited to any provision in that Act prohibiting the shifting of the place of publication of a newspaper from one place to another. A owner of a business in this country can shift his business at his discretion, unless prohibited by law, from one place to another. It is for the petitioner to show that a newspaper owner’s right to shift the place of its publication is either taken way or restricted by-law. In that regard, as seen earlier, the provision of the Press and Registration of Books Act are of no assistance to the petitioner. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that whenever a new declaration as made under section 5(2) of the Press and Registration of Books Act, it must be presumed that a new newspaper has come into existence. The basis for this argument was the theory that a newspaper comes into existence as soon as a declaration Tinder that provision is made and it dies the moment that declaration ceases. We have already rejected that view. If that be the true position in law, as often as the place of printing or publication is changed, a new newspaper must be deemed to come into existence because rule (3) of section 5 requires a fresh declaration to be filed as often as the place of printing or publication is changed. Similarly, whenever a Printer or Publisher leaves India for a period exceeding ninety days or when the Printer or Publisher is by infirmity or otherwise rendered incapable of carrying out his duties for a period exceeding ninety days, a new declaration is necessary by the new Printer or Publisher. If the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is correct, a new newspaper is deemed to have come into existence whenever such events occur. We are constrained to hold that the contention in question is an extreme one and it finds no support from the provisions of the Press and Registration of Books Act. If the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is correct, a new newspaper is deemed to have come into existence whenever such events occur. We are constrained to hold that the contention in question is an extreme one and it finds no support from the provisions of the Press and Registration of Books Act. It was asked of us to hold that the “Indian Express”, Bangalore, is a new newspaper as not only its place of its publications changed, its printing is done in a new building with the aid of new machines and new staff. It was said that everything about that paper has been changed excepting its title, its ownership and the editor. We are unable to accede to that contention. The building in which a newspaper is published, the machinery used, the staff employed and the declared Printer and Publisher are undoubtedly important adjuncts of a newspaper. But, they by no means constitute a newspaper. As observed in Halsbury’s Laws of England, which observation we have already quoted earlier that the “property” of a newspaper may include the plant and materials necessary for its production. But, the expression “newspaper” applies only to the right of publication under a particular name. The next contention of Mr. V.K. Krishna Menon, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, was that at least for the purpose of the Newsprint Control Order 1962, the “Indian Express” published from Bangalore should be considered as a new newspaper. On this aspect of the case, his arguments proceeded thus: “Consumer of newsprint,” according to the definition in the Newsprint Control Order, means a printer or publisher of newspapers, periodicals, textbooks or bocks of general interest who uses newsprint; under that Order, newsprint is allotted to the “Consumer of Newsprint”; sub-clause (3) of clause 3 of that order provides that no consumer of newsprint shall, in any licensing period, consume or use newsprint in excess of the quantity authorised by the controller from time to time; further sub-clause (5) of that clause provides that in issuing an authorisation under that clause, the Controller shall have regard to the principles laid down in the Import Control policy with respect to newsprint announced by the Central Government from time to time; Mr. Swamy was the Printer and Publisher of the “Indian Express” at Chittoor for the licensing period 1965-66; newsprint has been allotted to Mr. Swamy was the Printer and Publisher of the “Indian Express” at Chittoor for the licensing period 1965-66; newsprint has been allotted to Mr. Swamy for the use of the “Indian Express” published from Chittoor; he can consume or use that newsprint only for the purpose of printing the “Indian Express” to be published from Chittoor; that newsprint cannot be transferred to Bangalore or used at Bangalore by the sixth respondent for the publication of the “Indian Express” at Bangalore. This contention overlooks the fact that that newsprint is allotted for the use of a particular newspaper. It is not allotted to the Printer or the Publisher as such. The Printer or the Publisher of the paper is given newsprint for the use of the paper of which he is the Printer or Publisher. He cannot use it for any other purpose. In other words the allotment is to the paper and not to its Printed or Publisher. The Printer and the Publisher receives the allotment on behalf of the paper. If the Printer or the Publisher of a paper is changed in the middle of the licensing period, he cannot walk away with the newsprint allotment for that paper. After the change, the succeeding Printer or the Publisher would represent the newspaper in question, and he becomes the consumer of the newsprint thereafter. Assuming that in the instant case newsprint had been allotted in the name of Mr. Swamy, which fact is denied by the respondents, and to that question we shall presently address ourselves, Mr. Swamy received the allotment only as the Printer and Publisher of the "Indian Express" that was being published at Chittoor. The moment the sixth respondent stepped into the shoes of Mr. Swamy, he became the custodian of that newsprint. No fresh allotment in the name of the sixth respondent was necessary. Nor such a course is contemplated by the Newsprint Control Order. Now coming to the actual order of allotment, a copy of the same has been produced before us by Mr. Thiruvenkatachari the learned Counsel for respondents, 4 to 6. That order reads as follows: "No. 16(4) /46-65/PR. NPG. II. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF NEWSPAPERS FOR INDIA. (Ministry for Information and Broadcasting) New Delhi, the 1-8-1964. To M/s. Indian Express (Madurai, Ltd., Pankajam Gardens, 137, Ramnad Road, Madurai-9 (Madras State). Thiruvenkatachari the learned Counsel for respondents, 4 to 6. That order reads as follows: "No. 16(4) /46-65/PR. NPG. II. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF NEWSPAPERS FOR INDIA. (Ministry for Information and Broadcasting) New Delhi, the 1-8-1964. To M/s. Indian Express (Madurai, Ltd., Pankajam Gardens, 137, Ramnad Road, Madurai-9 (Madras State). Subject: GRANT OF LICENSE FOR IMPORT OF NEWSPRINT DURING APRIL 1964-MARCH 1965. Dear Sir, Kindly refer to your application dated 27-6-1964 addressed to the Chief Controller or Imports, and Exports, New New Delhi, through the Registrar of Newspapers for India. New Delhi, regarding the issue of License for Import of Newsprint in respect of your Newspaper(s). In terms of the current import policy/your entitlement during April 1964-March 1965 has; come to 5,626.09 metric tones, on the basis of the following particulars. Name of the Paper Circulation Average Pages Page area *1 Indian Express, Madurai 49.282 11.42 375.87 Sq. In. *2 Dinamani, Madurai 85.850 (63-64) 6.64 -Do.- *3 Indian Express, Chittoor 40.442 11.42 -Do.- *4 Dinamani, Madras 39.945 6.79 -Do.- *5 Indian Express Vijayawada 33.918 11.42 -Do.- Nepa Newspring 1687.83 Metric Tonnes Imported Std. Newspring 3938.26 Metric Tonnes Glazed Newsprint - Metric Tonnes TOTAL: 5626.09 Metric Tonnes * Figures arrived in terms of para. 2 (note) (i) in para. 3(A) of Public Notice No. 35-ITC (PN) 64, dated 29th April, 1964. You have already been allowed a quantity of 2,540.00* metric tonnes newsprint in advance against April, 1964-March 1965 and/or an excess quantity of-Metric tonnes was allowed to you in the last period. After adjusting these quantities the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, New Delhi, has been requested to issue a license for the following values and quantity etc. (a) 70% on free resources Abitibi Scannews (Reels) Quantity (in metric tonnes) 1398.84 759.42 Value (In rupees) 9,72,194 5,27,797 * Abitibi 360; Scannews 120; R/AC 1300; Nepa 760; Total 2540. So far as Nepa newsprint is concerned, a Nepa authorisation No. 127/64-65/Nepa, for 927.83 metric tonnes (after adjusting advance allotment against April 1964-March 1965 or excess quantity allowed in the past) is sent herewith. Note: The entitlement of Dinamani, Madurai has been worked out on April 1963-March 1964 circulation and pages as it is less than April 1961-March 1962 circulation and permitted pages. Attention in this connection is invited to para-3(A) 2 of Public Notice No 28- ITC (PN/64, dated 2nd April, 1964. 2. Note: The entitlement of Dinamani, Madurai has been worked out on April 1963-March 1964 circulation and pages as it is less than April 1961-March 1962 circulation and permitted pages. Attention in this connection is invited to para-3(A) 2 of Public Notice No 28- ITC (PN/64, dated 2nd April, 1964. 2. In the case of Dinamani, Madras, there has been a shortfall of 48.29 metric tonnes in consumption during October 1963-March 1964 which has been adjusted. Yours faithfully, (Sd.) M.L. TANDON. Section Officer, For REGISTRAR OF NEWSPAPERS FOR INDIA." From that order it is seen that the allotment was made in favour of the fourth respondent and not in favour of Mr. Swamy. We have not gone into the question whether that allotment was in accordance with law. We are merely dealing with the factual situation. All that we need say is that the newsprint with which we are concerned in this case had not been allotted in the name of Mr. Swamy. Therefore the contention that the newsprint allotted in the name of Mr. Swamy cannot be used by the sixth respondent for the publication of the "Indian Express" from Bangalore has to fail. It may be remembered that even according to the petitioner, the fourth respondent is the owner of the Indian Express, Madurai, Dinamani, Madurai, Dinamani, Madras the Indian Express, Vijayawada and the Indian Express, Chittoor which has now become the Indian Express, Bangalore. It was next urged by Mr. Menon that the publication of the "Indian Express" at Chittoor had already been shifted to Madras in 1963 and therefore, the same paper could not have been again shifted to Bangalore in June, 1965. For the contention that the "Indian Express", Chittoor had been shifted to Madras in 1963, he sought support from the following averments made in paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit filed by the sixth respondent on behalf of respondents 4 to 6: "When in December, 1963, the printing and publication of Madras edition was started, it was a transfer for a part only of the Chittoor publication. Andhra Prabha and Dinamani were wholly transferred. So far as Indian Express is concerned, the position was that there was to be a Madras edition in addition to the one in Chittoor, and a part of the Chittoor circulation was diverted to. Andhra Prabha and Dinamani were wholly transferred. So far as Indian Express is concerned, the position was that there was to be a Madras edition in addition to the one in Chittoor, and a part of the Chittoor circulation was diverted to. Madras." From these averments, it is not possible to conclude that the owners of the Indian Express, Chittoor, had shifted the same from Chittoor to Madras in 1963. In his counter-affidavit, the sixth respondent had definitely stated that the Madras Edition of the Indian Express is in addition to the one in Chittor. That is also the stand taken by respondents 1 to 3. In paragraph 12 of his counter-affidavit, the second respondent has averred thus: "The allegation of the petitioner that the Chittoor edition of the Indian Express had already been transferred to Madras once in 1963 and therefore, the same Chittoor edition could not be transferred to Bangalore is totally incorrect. The Madras edition of the Indian Express started in 1963 as a separate edition of the Indian Express and not by shifting the Chittoor edition to Madras. No newsprint quota was allowed to the Madras edition by the Government of India since the same was considered to be an addition to the existing chain of newspapers. In fact, the proprietors of the Indian Express applied to the Government of India for additional quota of newsprint to the new edition at Madras on its commencement of its publication in December, 1963. This was not agreed to as under the policy no newsprint quota could be allowed to chains, groups and multiple unit; for publication of new newspapers. However permission was granted for the diversion of a part of the quota sanctioned for the Chittoor edition to the new edition of the Indian Express at Madras." From what is stated above, it is clear that the Madras Edition of the Indian Express is a new edition, is addition to its other editions including the Chittoor edition. Mr. Menon seriously criticised the conduct of the second respondent for permitting the fourth respondent to pool together the quota allotted to the various papers under its ownership and utilise it for any of the editions under its management. He contended that this concession made by the second respondent contravenes both the Import Control Policy laid down by the Government as well as the provisions of the Newsprint Control Order. He contended that this concession made by the second respondent contravenes both the Import Control Policy laid down by the Government as well as the provisions of the Newsprint Control Order. According to him, the permission given by the second respondent to the fourth respondent to utilise newsprint quota given to one newspaper for the use of any other newspaper has made ineffective the Government policy that addition to newspaper chain should be discouraged. He complained that the Indian Express is a chain-about which there is no dispute-if that chain is permitted to utilise the newsprint allotted to one of its links, to facilitate a new link being added to the chain, then the professed policy of the Government that a chain of newspapers should not be allowed to add any more link to the chain would be completely corroded. The second respondent in his counter-affidavit, has stated that in view of the representation of the Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society as well as the representations made by other individuals, it was decided by the Government of India, that there would be no objection to the transfer of newsprint and white printing paper as between publications bearing the same name and published from different centres in India. According to him, that latitude was permitted not only to enable the newspapers to utilise their quotas of newsprint and white printing paper to their maximum advantage, but also to enable multi-edition newspapers to adjust their circulation between the various centres of publication within the total quota granted to the newspaper. He says that in pursuance of the said decision, permission was given by him to such multi-editions newspapers as have asked for permission to redistribute the allotted quota but no extra quota of newsprint was given to any multi-edition newspaper including respondents 4 an 5 who also asked for permission to adjust the circulation between different editions only. According to him, the abovesaid latitude was afforded to the newspapers with due regard to the principles laid down in the Newsprint Import Policy. According to the petitioner, no such policy decision was taken by the Government; further the permission given by the second respondent contravenes the principles laid down in the newsprint import policy. We fail to see the relevancy of this controversy in the present case. It does not bear on any of the points arising for decision in this case. According to the petitioner, no such policy decision was taken by the Government; further the permission given by the second respondent contravenes the principles laid down in the newsprint import policy. We fail to see the relevancy of this controversy in the present case. It does not bear on any of the points arising for decision in this case. As seen earlier, the question with which are concerned in this case is whether the Bangalore edition of the Indian Express is a new newspaper or whether there has been merely a change of place of publication of a newspaper which was already in existence. There is no complaint before us that the Indian Express Bangalore, is utilising the newsprint allotted to any newspaper other than that allotted to the Indian Express, Chittoor. Mr. Menon very strenuously contended that the permission granted by the second respondent to the fourth respondent to shift the Indian Express, Chittoor, to Bangalore, and thereby facilitate the Indian Express Group to add one more link to the chain is directly opposed to the recommendation of the Press Commission and the policy adumbrated in the Policy Statement popularly known as “Red Book”. He further urged that the power conferred on the second respondent is a power coupled with duty and hence the authority exercising the power must bear in mind the duty imposed on him; and he must ever be conscious of the policy which he is required to implement. In this connection, he sought support from the ratio of the decision of the Court of Appeal in Prescott v. Birmingham Corporation1. Our attention has not been invited to any provision of law under which the permission of the second respondent is required to shift the place of publication of newspaper. It is true, that the sixth respondent, asked for and obtained the permission of the second respondent to publish the Chittoor edition of the Indian Express at Bangalore. But, we think that that must have been done as a measure of abundant caution. That being so, we must hold that in the matter of shifting the newspaper from Chittoor to Bangalore, the owners of that newspaper did not need any permission or sanction from the second respondent. The recommendations made by the Press Commission are merely recommendatory. They do not have the force of law. That being so, we must hold that in the matter of shifting the newspaper from Chittoor to Bangalore, the owners of that newspaper did not need any permission or sanction from the second respondent. The recommendations made by the Press Commission are merely recommendatory. They do not have the force of law. Further, our attention has not been invited to any part of that Report prohibiting the changing the place of publication of a newspaper. It is true that that commission recommended that multi-edition papers should not be encouraged to add to their chain. As we have earlier come to the conclusion that, in the instant case, there has been no addition to the chain and it is merely the replacement of one link by the other, no question of adding to chain arises. The Policy Statements contained in the Red Book do not have the force of law It is merely a policy declaration by the Government of India. Being an executive declaration it does not give rise to legal rights or liabilities. Further, the Government itself is not bound by its policy declaration in respect of its executive action. The Import Policy is more concerned with foreign exchange. It may be liberalised temporarily or tightened up from time to time. The allocation made thereunder is not a hard and fast one. The decision of this Court in K.S. Karanth v. Union of India and others1, to which one of us (Hegde, J.) was, a party, which laid down that the,Import Trade Control policy published in the “Red Book” has the force of law, cannot be considered as having laid down the correct law in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in The Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Madras v. M/s. Aminchand Mutha etc.2 Therein the Supreme Court laid down that the Policy Statements published in the Red Book are merely administrative instructions for the guidance of licensing authorities. The Court further laid down that these administrative instructions do not create any right as such in favour of persons with whom they deal; they are for the guidance of the authorities in the matter of granting quota from the purpose of the Import Control Order. This conclusion also receives support from the decision relied on by Mr. Thiruvenkatachari, the learned Counsel for Respondents 4 to 6, in Rederiaktiebolaget Amphitrite v. The King3. This conclusion also receives support from the decision relied on by Mr. Thiruvenkatachari, the learned Counsel for Respondents 4 to 6, in Rederiaktiebolaget Amphitrite v. The King3. That apart, the Policy Statement, as we understand it, does not in any manner prohibit the change of place of publication of a newspaper, which only means the transfer of business from one place to another. In support of his contention the change in the place of publication of a newspaper is prohibited by the Policy Statement, Mr. Menon relied on clauses 4(3), 9, 10(a)(ii)and 11 of the Policy Statement published on the 21st April, 1965. Clause 4(3) says: “The entitlement of individual newspaper/periodicals for newsprint and indigenous white printing paper, other than Nepa newsprint, will be determined by the Registrar of Newspapers of India, New Delhi, on the following basis: * * * * * * * (3) The entitlement of daily newspapers and their Sunday editions (ever if these Sunday editions bear different titles and are registered with the Registrar of Newspapers for India separately) will be worked out together.” Clause 9 reads: “Existing dailies, including their Sunday editions, which were publishing in 1957, or in the year in which they commenced publication, or were allowed to publish later on, two, four or six pages per publishing day, or less, will, on application, be allowed to increase the number of their pages up to a maximum of four, six and eight per publishing day, respectively. No page increase will, however, be allowed in the case of periodicals or in the case of daily ‘newspapers, including their Sunday editions, to whom permission for increase in pages has already been accorded in 1963-64 or 1964-65.” Clause 10(a)(ii) deals with new daily newspapers. It says: “New daily newspapers will be allowed generally an initial quota to develop and build up an average circulation to the maximum limit of 5,000 copies of eight pages per publishing day during the first three months after commencement of publication. During these three months, indigenous newsprint manufactured by Nepa Mills will normally be allotted. As a concession, this allotment may, however, on application, be converted into 50 per cent. Nepa and 50 per cent. imported newsprint. During these three months, indigenous newsprint manufactured by Nepa Mills will normally be allotted. As a concession, this allotment may, however, on application, be converted into 50 per cent. Nepa and 50 per cent. imported newsprint. The quantity of imported ‘newsprint’ so allowed will be adjusted against the entitlement for imported newsprint for the subsequent months.” Clause 11 merely says that it will not be possible to allocate any quota of newsprint to newspaper chains, groups and multiple units for publication of new periodicals and newspapers. These clauses do not support the contention of Mr. Menon. Further, all that rule 3(5) of the Newsprint Control Order says is that in issuing authorisation under that clause, the Controller shall have regard to the principles laid down in the Import Control Policy with respect to newsprint announced by the Central Government from time to time, which means in determining the entitlement the Controller shall take into consideration the Policy-see Ryots of Garabandho v. Zamindar of Parlakimidi4, and Ramayya v. State of Madras5. Therefore the Controller is not entirely tied down by the Policy, but in determining the newsprint entitlement of a newspaper, he must take that into consideration. The next contention of Mr. Menon was that by permitting the Indian Express, Chittoor to shift its place of publication to Bangalore and by allowing it to utilise the newsprint quota allotted to the Chittoor Edition, at Bangalore, the second respondent had discriminated against the petitioner. It was said on behalf of the petitioner that they have been restricted to an average of 8.57 pages per day; in spite of representations they have not been given more newsprint for publishing larger number of pages; they have been struggling hard to increase their number of pages and circulation, but have been unable to do so, on account of the Newsprint Policy laid down by the first respondent from time to time and the Newsprint Control Order; but respondents 4 to 6 are allowed to publish the Indian Express, Bangalore, including the Sunday Edition, with an average of 11.4 pages, keeping the price at 10 paise per copy, on week days which is the same as of Deccan Herald; naturally, an average reader will prefer to buy Indian Express, as he gets more pages for the same price. The Indian Express, Bangalore, although a new newspaper by being given this preferential treatment by respondents 1 to 3 and having secured the patronage of the State Government, is allowed to start with all the advantages, privileges and patronage of an existing newspaper, and thereby enabled to crush the petitioner’s newspaper at Bangalore; there is no justification whatever in law for such preferential treatment being given to the Indian Express, denying to the petitioner equality before the law; the threat to the petitioner’s existence is real and imminent. It is further stated in paragraph 19 of the petitioner’s affidavit that if respondents 1 to 3 are not forbidden from granting any newsprint to respondents 4 to 6 for the Indian Express and Sunday Standard, Bangalore, or are not forbidden from permitting or acquiescing in the unlawful diversion of newsprint to Bangalore from any other centre, it will prove a menace to the continued existence of Deccan Herald, in as much as by subservience to law, the petitioners are prevented from increasing the number of pages of their publication, while respondent 4 is enabled to circumvent it and let loose a ruthless and unfair competition by publishing from Bangalore more pages than Deccan Herald, while the price per copy of both remains the same. The allegation in that the State Government has been bestowing on the Indian Express, Bangalore, its patronage has no relevancy for our present purpose. Nor can we go into that allegation as the State Government is not a party to this petition. We have already come to the conclusion that the Indian Express, Bangalore, is not a new newspaper. Newsprint allotment is made to Newspapers on the basis of a well defined policy. The legality of that policy has not been questioned before us. Therefore, no question of discrimination can arise for consideration. The fact that the Indian Express may prove to be a serious competitor to the Deccan Herald cannot be made the basis of a plea of discrimination. The legality of that policy has not been questioned before us. Therefore, no question of discrimination can arise for consideration. The fact that the Indian Express may prove to be a serious competitor to the Deccan Herald cannot be made the basis of a plea of discrimination. As observed by the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bhopal Sugar Industries, Ltd.1, to make out a case of denial of the equal protection of the laws under Article 14 of the Constitution, a plea of differential treatment is by itself not sufficient; an applicant pleading that equal protection of the laws has been denied to him must make out that not only he had been treated differently from others but he has been so treated from persons similarly circumstanced without any reasonable basis and such differential treatment is unjustifiably made. On the basis of the material before us, it is not possible to uphold the contention of the petitioner that it had been treated differently from others similarly circumstanced and that without any reasonable basis. In view of the findings given above, the petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs asked for. Even if we had upheld the contentions of the petitioner, noticed above we could not have granted it the reliefs prayed for the reasons to be presently stated. The petitioner has asked for 3 reliefs. Firstly, it wants this Court to forbid respondents 1 to 3 from granting to respondents 4, 5 and/or 6 for Indian Express and Sunday Standard, Bangalore, any newsprint or newsprint quota, the said papers being new newspapers added to the existing chain of the Indian Express Newspapers; secondly we are asked to forbid respondents 4 and 5, their servants and agents and any of their subsidiary companies from diverting, using or otherwise appropriating for Indian Express and/or Sunday Standard, Bangalore, the newsprint allotted to Indian Express or Sunday Standard published from any other centre, or to any other newspaper owned or controlled by them; and lastly, we are asked to direct respondents 1 to 3 to prevent any such diversion, use or appropriation. It is a firm rule of law that a mandamus is only issued against some one, who holds a public office and the direction issued by the Court should relate to some public duty pertaining to his office. It is a firm rule of law that a mandamus is only issued against some one, who holds a public office and the direction issued by the Court should relate to some public duty pertaining to his office. It is a judicial remedy which is in form an order from a superior Court to any Government, Court, Corporation or public authority to do or to forbear from doing some specific act which that body is obliged to do under law to do or to refrain from as the case may be and which is in the nature of a public duty and in certain cases of a statutory duty. Before this Court issues any Order in the nature of a mandamus, it must be satisfied that the command to be made by the Court pertains to the office of the persons to whom the command is addressed and the same is in the nature of a public duty. Such a command cannot ordinarily be addressed to a private individual. In the instant case, as seen earlier, we have come to the conclusion that the Indian Express, Bangalore, is not a new newspaper and it is entitled to use the newsprint allotted for the Indian Express, Chittoor. In fact, as noticed earlier, for the years 1965-66 newsprint had been allotted in favour of the fourth respondent. That allotment is not challenged in this Writ Petition. Therefore, we are not called upon to consider whether the Order of the second respondent permitting the fourth respondent to utilise the newsprint allotted to it for one or the other of its editions is in accordance with law. In these circumstances, the first relief prayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted. Coming to the second relief, it is not denied that respondents 4to 6 do not hold any public office. They have no public duty to perform. Therefore, unless collusion between them and respondents 1 to 3 is pleaded and proved, no Writ of Mandamus can be issued against those respondents. See Sohan Lal v. Union of India and another1. In no part of the petitioner’s pleadings there is clear and specific plea of collusion between respondents 1 to 3 and the other respondents. Further on the material before us, it is not possible to uphold the contention urged at the time of the hearing that there was any collusion between them. In no part of the petitioner’s pleadings there is clear and specific plea of collusion between respondents 1 to 3 and the other respondents. Further on the material before us, it is not possible to uphold the contention urged at the time of the hearing that there was any collusion between them. Assuming that those respondents have either contravened or are likely to contravene any provision of law, that is not a matter that can be dealt with in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, under which the Newsprint Control Order was issued, provides for penalties for contravention of any of the provisions of the Newsprint Control Order. If respondents 4 to 6 contravene any of the provisions of the Newsprint Control Order, then they are liable to be prosecuted for the offence committed by them. But, that is not a matter to be dealt with in a Writ Petition. The third and the last relief asked for in the petition in substance means that we should direct respondents 1 to 3 to prosecute respondents 4 to 6 for the alleged offences committed by them and further direct respondents 1 to 3 to see that respondents 4 to 6 do not contravene the provisions of the Newsprint Control Order in future. If any of respondents 4 to 6 are guilty of contravention of the Newsprint Control Order only thing that can be done is to prosecute them. In the exercise of our extraordinary jurisdiction, it would not be proper for us to direct respondents 1 to 3 to launch a prosecution against respondents 4 to 6: See the decisions in Nagpur Glass Works Ltd. and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Nagpur2; and B. Radhakrishnan v. State of Madras3. We fail to see how we can ask respondents 1 to 3 to see that respondents 4 to 6 do not contravene the provisions of the Newsprint Control Order in future. If we ask them to do that we will be asking them to do something impossible. There is no justification for issuing such an Order. We fail to see how we can ask respondents 1 to 3 to see that respondents 4 to 6 do not contravene the provisions of the Newsprint Control Order in future. If we ask them to do that we will be asking them to do something impossible. There is no justification for issuing such an Order. Respondents 1 to 3 raised two preliminary objections, the first of which is that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this petition the second being that the relief asked for by the petitioner should not be given as it cannot be considered as an aggrieved party. Respondents 1 to 3 are not right in contending that no part of the cause of action in this case arose within the jurisdiction of this Court. Admittedly, the sixth respondent is residing in Bangalore City. The Indian Express, Bangalore, is being published from this City. The sixth respondent is a servant of the fourth respondent. One of the reliefs asked for in this case is that we should forbid the sixth respondent among others from diverting, using or otherwise appropriating for Indian Express and or Sunday Standard. Bangalore, the newsprint allotted to the Indian Express or Sunday Standard published from any other centre. For the purpose of determining the maintainability of a petition, what is relevant is the averments made in the petition and not the final conclusion of the Court. It is not the case of respondents 1 to 3 that the relief in question has been included merely as a pretence so as to get an entrance into this Court. Hence, we are unable to accept the contention of respondents 1 to 3 that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition. The question whether the petitioner can be considered as an aggrieved party or not is not free from difficulty. As we are even otherwise dismissing this petition, it is not necessary to go into that contention. For the reasons mentioned above, this petition fails and the same is dismissed with costs of respondents 1 to 6, one set for respondents 1 to 3 and another set for respondents 4 to 6. Advocate’s fee Rs. 100. V.S. ----- Petition dismissed.