Judgment S.N.Jha and R.S.Garg JJ. 1. This writ petition on behalf of Publisher and Editor of a newspaper called "Begusarai Times has been filed seeking direction upon the respondents to open the seal put on Lok Bharti Press, Begusarai from where Begusarai Times is published, and further direction not to interfere with the publication of the said newspaper. 2. Short facts of the case are as follows. In the night of 9/10 February 1987 at about 4.30 A.M. the respondent-authorities raided the premises of the press i.e. Lok Bharti Press and seized some papers as per the seizure list. They also sealed the press itself. On the report of the District Public Relations Officer, Begusarai, Begusarai P.S. Case No. 39/87 under sections 406, 467, 468, 471, 420 of the Indian Penal Code and section 12 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 (in short the Press Act) was also registered. The case of the petitioner is that Begusarai Times and Birsa Times, another newspaper, are published under a declaration as required under section 4 of the Press Act. As per the declaration Begusarai Times is printed at Lok Bharti Press, Begusarai and Birsa Times is printed at Sunaiyana Press Ranchi. However, Birsa Times could also be printed at Lok Bharti Press, Begusarai. As per declaration, further, the publisher of Begusarai Times was to publish and circulate 11000 copies for which they were entitled to quota of newspaper print materials at subsidised rate, but due to paucity of supply they used to receive only 60% of quota at intervals of three months. The last quota was received in November, 1987. The case of the petitioner is that some news items were published in the Begusarai Times which were not to the liking of local administration. Being annoyed with the same, they firstly threatened the publisher of dire consequences and finally took the impugned action. 3. The case of the respondents is that as per the declaration submitted by the Publisher of the Begusarai Times in terms of section 4 of the Press Act, they were supposed to print 14500 copies of the newspaper and on that basis they were getting supply of newspaper materials as well as advertisement. However, they were publishing limited copies of the newspaper. On receipt of confidential information the premises were raided. However, they were publishing limited copies of the newspaper. On receipt of confidential information the premises were raided. In course of raid and search only 450 copies of the Begusarai Times were found printed. Some copies of partly printed Birsa Times were also recovered. The authorities took the view that part of the printing materials which were being supplied for printing and publishing Begusarai Times were being used for printing the other newspaper, namely, Birsa Times, which was supposed to be printed at Sunaiyana Press, Ashok Nagar, Ranchi. In the circumstances, the abovesaid case was instituted against the publisher and editor of Begusarai Times and the press was sealed. 4. We do not wish to deal with the respective case of the parties for the reason that the abovesaid Begusarai P.S. Case No. 39/87 is pending trial in the court below. In the instant case we are only concerned with the question of sealing of the press. It may be mentioned here that at the time of admission of the case, by an interim order, the seal was ordered to be removed and the press has been running normally ever since. The only point for consideration is whether the impugned action of the authorities putting seal on the premises of the press was legal. We called upon the counsel for the respondents to point out the law under which the press could be sealed. Counsel at the first instance referred to Newsprint Allocation Policy 1988-89 and submitted that in terms of para 4.3 of the said policy the publishers of any newspaper/periodical are obliged to utilise the newsprint materials supplied to them under the Newsprint Allocation Policy for printing the concerned newspaper/periodicals and if they do not do so, action can be taken against them for having availed of the benefits of the allocation of newsprint materials at subsidised rate under the Allocation Policy. They cannot utilise the materials so supplied to them for different purpose including publication of another newspaper/periodical. 5. A bare perusal of para 4.3 of the Allocation Policy exposes the hollowness of the submission of the State counsel. It is true that any person to whom newsprint material is allocated under the Allocation Policy is supposed to utilise the newsprint materials for the purpose for which it has been supplied. 5. A bare perusal of para 4.3 of the Allocation Policy exposes the hollowness of the submission of the State counsel. It is true that any person to whom newsprint material is allocated under the Allocation Policy is supposed to utilise the newsprint materials for the purpose for which it has been supplied. However, non-adherence to the terms of allocation cannot be a ground for sealing the premises of the press itself. This is evident from the consequence of non-adherence to the terms of the allocation as mentioned in para 4.3 itself. It may be quoted as under :- "In case, a newspaper/periodical is found to have given a false statement about its performance or circulation, it shall render itself liable for being debarred from allocation of newsprint for a specific period which may extend upto one year in the manner indicated below :- It would thus appear that for any default committed by the publisher, further allocation of newsprint for specific period may be stopped but on that ground it cannot invite sealing of the press itself. Para 4.3 of the Allocation Policy, therefore, cannot be invoked to defend the impugned action of the authorities. 6 Counsel for the State next referred to section 95 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 95 Cr. P.C. contemplates a different situation altogether and by no stretch of logic can be applied for sealing the press. Counsel then referred to section 12 of the Press Act. Section 12 of the Press Act provides that whoever prints or publishes any book or paper otherwise than in conformity with the rule contained in section 3 of this Act be punished by fine of two thousand rupees or by simple im prisonment for a term not exceeding six months or both. Section 3 provides that every book or paper printed in India shall have printed legibly on it the name of the printer and the place of printing the name of publisher and the place of publication. A conjoint reading of section 12 and section 3 makes it clear that the action of sealing cannot be brought within the ambit of section 12 either. No other provision of law has been brought to our notice under which the impugned sealing could be justified. A conjoint reading of section 12 and section 3 makes it clear that the action of sealing cannot be brought within the ambit of section 12 either. No other provision of law has been brought to our notice under which the impugned sealing could be justified. We, therefore, have no hesitation in holding that the impugned action of the authorities in sealing the press was wholly illegal and unjustified. 7. In the above premises, the writ petition is allowed, the interim order dated 10.3.87 directing seal put on the premise to be removed is made absolute. There will be no order as to costs.