Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 83 (JK)

Tahir Mohiuddin v. Union of India

2014-02-28

HASNAIN MASSODI

body2014
ORDER 1. Petitioner is a senior journalist and proprietor, printer, publisher and editor of daily Chattan, Srinagar, Respondent No. 4 is a budding journalist keen to publish a newspaper from Srinagar. The petitioner sometime in 2009 decided to publish another newspaper in English and Urdu language under title Kashmir Today. He proposed to publish it from J-39, Jawahar Nagar, Srinagar. He approached Registrar of Newspapers for India, New Delhi-Respondent No. 2 herein, to find out whether any newspaper titled Kashmir Today was published in the country so that he would publish the proposed newspaper under the said name in English and Urdu languages from Srinagar. 2. The respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 7-9-2009 informed District Magistrate, Srinagar-respondent No. 3 herein, that the title was free and available. The District Magistrate, Srinagar, vide communication dated 27-4-2011 issued the authentication letter in favour of the petitioner. A copy of the authentication letter was sent to respondent No. 2 for necessary action. In terms of the authentication letter, the declaration made was to lose its force unless publication of the proposed newspaper i.e. Kashmir Today was commenced within six weeks from the date of the letter. This apart, the petitioner was required to submit all the documents mentioned in the authentication letter after the publication of first issue within the period laid down therein and the title was to be treated free in the event of his failure to submit the documents within the said timeframe. 3. Petitioner claims to have published the first issue of the newspaper Kashmir Today in Urdu and English on 25th May 2011 and therefore fulfilled the first condition laid down in the authentication letter. He further claims to have submitted all the necessary papers required for registration of the newspapers within six weeks. The petitioner s case is that in view of fulfillment of all necessary conditions laid down in the authentication letter dated 27-4-2011, the respondent No. 2 was under an obligation in terms of Section 19C, The Press and Publication of Books Act, to issue Certification of Registration in favour of the petitioner. He is aggrieved that the respondent No. 2 avoided to issue the Certificate of Registration in his favour and instead the title Kashmir Today was shown in the official website as deleted from the name of the petitioner. 4. He is aggrieved that the respondent No. 2 avoided to issue the Certificate of Registration in his favour and instead the title Kashmir Today was shown in the official website as deleted from the name of the petitioner. 4. The respondent No. 2 on inquiry is said to have informed the petitioner that the petitioner had failed to submit requisite documents within prescribed period. The petitioner disputes the stand taken by respondent No. 2 that the documents were not submitted within the requisite period in terms of authentication letter dated 27-4-2011. It is pleaded that the petitioner having made a serious effort to publish the newspaper under title Kashmir Today, there was no reason for him to avoid to submit the requisite documents within the prescribed time. The title Kashmir Today, according to the petitioner has been unjustifiably withdrawn from him and allotted to respondent No. 4 5. Petitioner s case is that the title Kashmir Today having been declared free by respondent No. 2 vide communication dated 7-9-2009 and thereafter the respondent No. 3 having issued letter of authentication in favour of the petitioner and the first issue of the newspaper published by the petitioner, he had a right to retain the title and that the title could not be withdrawn without affording the petitioner an opportunity to put forth his stand. Petitioner questions the withdrawal of the title and its allotment to respondent No. 4 on the ground that the action has been taken without hearing the petitioner and therefore violates the principle of audi alteram partem. 6. Petitioner on the strength of the averments made in the petition seeks a writ of certiorari quashing the order withdrawing/deleting the title Kashmir Today from the petitioner and allotting it to respondent No. 4. He further seeks a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents 1 to 3 to restore the title and issue certificate of registration in his favour. 7. The respondents 1 to 3 resist the writ petition on the ground that as the petitioner failed to submit the requisite documents to the office of Registrar of Newspapers for India, New Delhi, in connection with registration and the publication and avoided to get the title registered within the period of two years, the title was de-blocked and subsequently verified in favour of respondent No. 4. The respondents admit that the title Kashmir Today was initially verified vide No. JKBIL00245 dated 7-9-2009-TC in favour of the petitioner. They, however, plead that as the petitioner did not take necessary steps for registration of the title within two years, it got automatically de-blocked. The respondents explain that the verification and registration of the title is computerized and once a person in whose favour a title is verified fails to take steps for registration, it gets automatically de-blocked and becomes free for allotment. Admitting that the application for registration with requisite documents from the petitioner was received on 11th November 2011, the respondents maintain that the documents were not entertained as the title was already got de-blocked on 7th September, 2011, and the petitioner accordingly informed vide communication No. 9/125/2011-R3 dated 29-12-2011. The representation filed by the petitioner is said to have not been considered as it also was received after the title got de-blocked on 7-9-2011. The respondents point out that the authentication letter categorically in bold letters mentioned title void if not registered within two years/not transferable before registration making it sufficiently known to the petitioner that he was required to get the title registered in his favour by Registrar of Newspapers for India, New Delhi, within two years from the date the title was verified in his favour i.e. 7-9-2009. The respondents insist that none of the rights of the petitioner has been violated and the petitioner does not have a right to maintain the writ petition. 8. The respondent No. 4 in his reply reiterates the stand taken by respondents 1 to 3 in opposition to the writ petition. He claims to have approached the respondents with an application to verify the title Kashmir Today in his favour and the respondent No. 2 vide his letter No. PS/Adm/SGR/11/Pub/416 dated 28-11-2011 sought necessary information from respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 vide communication dated 11-1-2012 verified the title Kashmir Today in favour of respondent No. 4 clearing decks for grant of declaration/authentication by respondent No. 3 in his favour. It is pleaded that respondent No. 32 vide letter dated 5-1-2012 issued authentication letter in the requisite format in favour of the respondent No. 4 informing him that the title would be valid for two years and would get de-blocked unless the respondent takes steps for its registration in his favour. It is pleaded that respondent No. 32 vide letter dated 5-1-2012 issued authentication letter in the requisite format in favour of the respondent No. 4 informing him that the title would be valid for two years and would get de-blocked unless the respondent takes steps for its registration in his favour. The respondent claims to have published 10 issues of the newspaper and stopped/ discontinued its publication only after the court on 4-4-2012 granted a stay order against the publication. The petitioner is alleged to have withheld vital information regarding grant of letter and authentication in favour of respondent No. 4 as also his having published 10 issues of the newspaper under title Kashmir Today. 9. I have gone through the pleadings and have heard learned counsel for the parties. 10. The main plank of the petitioners case is that the title Kashmir Today having been verified in his favour and letter of authentication granted to him, he had a right to retain the title and cancellation of the title could not be resorted to except after affording him an opportunity of being heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner insists that even a pure administrative act entailing civil consequences is to conform and abide by the rules of natural justice. Dilating on his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the cancellation of title in favour of the petitioner visited him with civil consequences and the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were therefore under an obligation to afford the petitioner is reasonable and adequate opportunity to put forth his stand. 11. Before adverting to the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, it would be appropriate to notice a few important aspects of the matter. 2 and 3 were therefore under an obligation to afford the petitioner is reasonable and adequate opportunity to put forth his stand. 11. Before adverting to the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, it would be appropriate to notice a few important aspects of the matter. A bare look on the verification letter JKBIL00245 dated 7-9-2009-TC would reveal that the Registrar of Newspapers while informing respondent No. 3 that the title Kashmir Today was available and authorizing him to authenticate the declaration of the publisher/printer made it clear that ' the declaration made in respect of a publication shall be void if the newspaper does not commence publication within six weeks from the date of authentication in the case of a newspaper to be published once a week or oftener.' It further required the owner or publisher of the title to submit all documents required for its registration after publication of the first issue within six weeks, which should reach the office of respondent No. 2 within 30 days after the prescribed period i.e. 6 weeks. It was made clear that in the event the documents were not so submitted and received the title will be free for verification to the other applicant. The verification letter at its foot contained following warning in bold and capital letters. Title void if not registered within two years/not transferable before registration. A copy of the verification letter as is evident from the letter itself was sent to the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, was made well aware that in case of his failure to submit the documents within six weeks of the publication of the first issue ensuring that the documents are received within 30 days after the prescribed period i.e. 6 weeks, the verification letter would be stripped of its force and the title de-blocked to be allotted to any other person. The petitioner was also made aware that his failure to get the title registered in his name would make it void. 12. The petitioner s case is that he delivered all the documents as required in terms of para 6 of the verification letter at the office of respondent No. 2. The petitioner, however, has failed to place on record any receipt issued by the office of respondent No. 2 acknowledging the receipt of the documents from the petitioner. 12. The petitioner s case is that he delivered all the documents as required in terms of para 6 of the verification letter at the office of respondent No. 2. The petitioner, however, has failed to place on record any receipt issued by the office of respondent No. 2 acknowledging the receipt of the documents from the petitioner. The petitioner after he did not hear from the respondents when the documents as claimed by him were submitted by him, was expected to have raised the issue and sought clarification from respondent No. 2 or in any other manner pursued the matter. He, however, did not make any effort towards registration of his title till February 2012 when he claims to have made a representation to respondent No. 2 and thereafter filed a writ petition on hand on 27-3-2012. Petitioner appears to have woken up only after a fresh verification report was issued in favour of respondent No. 4 on 24-1-2012 and thereafter authentication letter issued by respondent No. 3. 13. There is nothing on the record to lend support to petitioner s case that he actually delivered the requisite documents at the office of respondent No. 2 within the prescribed period after commencement of the publication. It needs no emphasis that the petitioner would have been issued a proper receipt detailing the documents submitted, had he actually delivered the documents as claimed in the writ petition. The government offices as a matter of practice issue the receipt in such cases and where the receipt is not issued due to any lapse on the part of the Dealing Clerk, the person delivering the documents insists on issuance of receipt and is given such receipt. 14. The stand taken by the respondents that the documents were received from the petitioner much after the deadline sounds convincing. The respondents have given the actual date the documents were delivered and explained their inability to help the petitioner as by the date the documents were delivered, the title was automatically de-blocked, free to be verified in favour of some other person. The respondents have given the actual date the documents were delivered and explained their inability to help the petitioner as by the date the documents were delivered, the title was automatically de-blocked, free to be verified in favour of some other person. The fact that the title was subsequently verified in favour of respondent No. 4, declaration made, authentication letter issued, makes it abundantly clear that respondents 1 to 3 have adhered to the rule book and the petitioner deprived of an opportunity to publish his newspaper under title ' Kashmir Today' because of his own fault. 15. Petitioners case that he was entitled to be heard before the title was withdrawn and verified in favour of respondent No. 4 is build up on a wrong assumption that it was a case of cancellation of title or declaration in terms of section 8B, Press and Registration of Books Act 1987. Section 8B would come into play when a title duly registered is cancelled or withdrawn. Here is a case where the title was yet to be registered and it got automatically de-blocked because of failure on the part of petitioner to submit the requisite documents within prescribed time. It cannot be by any stretch of imagination taken to be a cancellation order warranting adherence to the procedure laid down therein including principal of audi alteram partem. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, cannot drawn any support of Sahara India Firm, Lucknow vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central-I and Another, (2008) 14 SCC 151 : AIR 2008 SC (Supp) 308. 16. The above discussion apart, the principle of natural justice do not call for a universal application in all circumstances and eventualities. Even if it is assumed that there was a scope for hearing in matter on hand, yet any such opportunity would not be warranted as it would not yield any results. We need to be reminded that the petitioner as the record would reveal did not submit the documents within prescribed time and failed to take steps for registration of the title in his favour within two years from the date verification letter was issued in his favour. The failure on the part of the petitioner led to de-blocking of the title and its verification in favour of respondent No. 4. The failure on the part of the petitioner led to de-blocking of the title and its verification in favour of respondent No. 4. The petitioner, therefore, had nothing to explain the failure on the part of the respondents to hear him has therefore not exposed him to any prejudice. 17. The petitioner surprisingly has avoided to narrate facts about de-blocking of the title in question, its verification in favour of respondent No. 4, grant of authentication letter upon declaration made by respondent No. 4 in his favour and publication of a number of issues of the newspaper by respondent No. 4 before restraint order was granted at the instance of the petitioner. These facts are expected to have been in the knowledge of the petitioner and should have been disclosed in the petition. The writ jurisdiction is an equitable jurisdiction exercised at the instance of one who does not withhold the true facts and events irrespective of the weightage these may warrant or deserve once the petition is taken up for consideration. The petitioner by withholding the information has disentitled himself from the discretionary and equitable relief. 18. For the reasons discussed, the writ petition is bereft of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order is recalled. Petition dismissed.