Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 185 (CAL)

Ganashakti v. State of West Bengal

2015-02-27

DEBANGSU BASAK

body2015
Judgment Debangsu Basak, J. An accredited newspaper, Ganashakti, the first writ petitioner herein has been denied Government advertisements on the ground that the first writ petitioner is an organ of the Communist Party of India (Marxist)[CPI(M)], a political party, and that the State Government could not allow the State Exchequer to fund a political party. The writ petitioners assail such conduct of the State Government in this writ petition. Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya, learned Senior Advocate for the writ petitioners points out that, the first writ petitioner is an accredited newspaper recognized by the Directorate of Advertising and Visual Publicity (DAVP), Government of India. He submits that the right to free speech and expression is a fundamental right. The constitutional guarantee of freedom of the Press has been recognized in various reported decisions of various High Courts as well as the Supreme Court of India. Mr. Bhattacharyya submits that, the State Government is guided by the guidelines of distribution of advertisements as declared by the DAVP in Annexure P/4 to the writ petition. Such policy is valid till date. The State Government is, therefore, required to adhere to such policy in distributing the advertisements. The denial of advertisements to a particular newspaper on the ground of political consideration is not only a violation of the declared policy of DAVP but also a violation of the constitutional guarantee of freedom of Press as well as infringement of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Bhattacharyya contends that, the guidelines prepared by DAVP for the distribution of Government advertisements are applicable to all State Governments. Such guidelines do not allow the State Government to deny advertisements to a newspaper on any political consideration. Mr. Bhattacharyya contends that, CPI(M) is a recognized political party. It is recognized by the Election Commission of India. As a recognized political party it is bound to place and it does place its annual accounts disclosing the source of its income to the Election Commission of India. The first writ petitioner maintains its own independent account which such accounts are duly audited. Such audited accounts are placed before the appropriate authority annually when the question of renewal of registration and accreditation of the newspaper comes up for consideration by the appropriate authority. He contends that, the first writ petitioner receives advertisements both from other State Governments as well as the Central Government. Such audited accounts are placed before the appropriate authority annually when the question of renewal of registration and accreditation of the newspaper comes up for consideration by the appropriate authority. He contends that, the first writ petitioner receives advertisements both from other State Governments as well as the Central Government. He submits that, the decision of the State Government not to issue any advertisements to the first writ petitioner is based purely on political considerations. Such political considerations could not permit a State Government to deny advertisements to the first writ petitioner. Mr. Bhattacharyya contends that, no material has been placed to substantiate the contentions of the State Government that advertisements issued to the first writ petitioner would mean funding the CPI(M). He points out that, the State Government has neither moved the DAVP nor the Election Commission of India with regard to the allegation that funds of the State Exchequer is being utilized by the CPI(M) by receiving advertisements from the State Government. Mr. Bhattacharyya contends that, the allegation that the first writ petitioner is an organ of the CPI(M) has no factual basis. He contends that, the party organ of CPI(M) is People’s Democracy which is another newspaper. The first writ petitioner is not and could not be held to be an organ of the CPI(M). He relies upon an unreported judgment of the Gauhati High Court dated December 15, 1992 passed in Civil Rule No. 39 of 1988 (Daily Desher Katha & Anr. v. The State of Tripura & Ors.) in support of his contention that the first writ petitioner not being a party organ of the CPI(M) could not be denied governmental advertisement. He refers to the audited balance sheets of the first writ petitioner and submits that, such accounts would show that the newspaper does not gain financially from the funds generated by the newspaper. He points out from the audited balance sheet of the first writ petitioner that the funds generated by the newspaper are not adequate to support its running and, therefore, no question arises as to CPI(M) benefiting out of the funds generated by the advertisements received from the State Government. Mr. Bhattacharyya questions the logic of the State Government to deny advertisements to the first writ petitioner on the ground that the first writ petitioner is an organ of a political party. Mr. Bhattacharyya questions the logic of the State Government to deny advertisements to the first writ petitioner on the ground that the first writ petitioner is an organ of a political party. He points out that, the Post Office Act, 1891 allows newspapers and journals irrespective of political ownership a lesser postal charge to facilitate its postal delivery. He contends that, when a Central legislation allows the benefit of a subsidy to an organ of a political party for its postal transmission and that is not construed to be a funding of a political party, then by the same logic he submits that, the issuance of advertisements to a newspaper would not amount to funding its owner. He invites the Court to consider the reverse situation. He contends that, if the logic of the State Government is upheld then the State Exchequer must not issue any advertisement to any newspaper as most of the newspapers are privately owned. By such logic of the State, the State Exchequer could not be allowed to fund a private individual. Mr. Bhattacharyya contends that issuance of an advertisement is not a donation. On the aspect of freedom of Press and the freedom of expression of the Press being protected, Mr. Bhattacharyya relies upon All India Reporter 1962 Supreme Court page 305 (Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.), 1972 Volume 2 Supreme Court Cases page 788 (Bennett Coleman Co. v. Union of India & Ors.), 1985 Volume 1 Supreme Court Cases page 641 (Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.), All India Reporter 1981 Andhra Pradesh page 109 (Ushodaya Publications Pvt. Ltd. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.), All India Reporter 1989 Gauhati page 30 (Dainik Sambad & Anr. V. State of Tripura & Ors.), All India Reporter 1995 Gauhati page 49 (State of Assam & Ors, v. M/s. Omega Printers and Publishers Pvt. Ltd.) and All India Reporter 1998 Gauhati page 28 (Sushil Chaudhury & Anr. v. State of Tripura & Ors.). Mr. Bhattacharyya refers to 2013 Volume 2 All England Reports page 1 (O’ Brien v. Ministry of Justice) and submits that, no discrimination is permissible amongst similarly situate persons. He relies upon 2003 Volume 1 Supreme Court Case page 591 (Hindusthan Times & Ors. v. State of Tripura & Ors.). Mr. Bhattacharyya refers to 2013 Volume 2 All England Reports page 1 (O’ Brien v. Ministry of Justice) and submits that, no discrimination is permissible amongst similarly situate persons. He relies upon 2003 Volume 1 Supreme Court Case page 591 (Hindusthan Times & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.) and submits that, the decision of the Government to deny advertisement to the first writ petitioner cannot be construed to come within the expression ‘law’ under Article 13 of the Constitution of India. Such decision of the State Government is not a statutory order having the force of law. Referring to 2014 Volume 6 Supreme Court Cases page 552 (Common Cause v. Union of India) Mr. Bhattacharyya submits that, the Supreme Court is in seisin of the issue as to whether funds of the public exchequer could be utilized to promote a political personality or not. He submits that, all newspapers in the country would be guided by the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Till such time that happens, he submits that, there is no basis for the State Government to deny advertisements to the first writ petitioner. He submits that, the first writ petitioner has been denied advertisements by the State Government without any reasonable basis. Such action of the State Government is tainted with a political consideration which such consideration is extraneous to the context. The action of State Government impugned herein infringes the rights guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India so far as the writ petitioners are concerned. In such circumstances he submits that, the decision of the State Government impugned in the writ petition should be squashed. Mr. Abhratosh Majumdar, learned Government Pleader submits that, the State Government has taken a decision on July 12, 2013 expressing its inability to issue advertisements to the first writ petitioner. The decision dated July 12, 2013 according to him, is informed with reasons. The State Government has taken a view with regard to release of advertisements to the first writ petitioner as would appear from the decision dated July 12, 2013. According to him, the first writ petitioner has a Bengali daily newspaper published on behalf of the CPI(M) West Bengal State Committee and, therefore, the objective of the first writ petitioner is to further the ideology and aims of the political party. According to him, the first writ petitioner has a Bengali daily newspaper published on behalf of the CPI(M) West Bengal State Committee and, therefore, the objective of the first writ petitioner is to further the ideology and aims of the political party. It is a vehicle for advancing the political agenda of a particular political party. It is a political publication and, therefore, may not be acceptable by all segments of the society. As it is owned and published by the West Bengal State Committee of CPI(M) releasing advertisement to the first writ petitioner would amount to funding a political party by the Government. No political party should be extended any Government patronage directly or indirectly and no wing of a political party should receive any public money directly or indirectly. The State Government as a matter of policy does not release any advertisement to any newspaper or periodical which has a political affiliation. Moreover, placement of Government advertisement is a commercial transaction that the State Government has the right to decide upon and choose in the light of its own policy. A policy decision of the State Government should be allowed to be challenged in a Court of law. The Government Pleader refers to 2003 Volume 4 Supreme Court Cases page 289 (Federation of Railway Officers Association v. Union of India) and 2002 Volume 2 Supreme Court Cases page 333 (BALCO Employees’ Union (Regd.) v. Union of India) and submits that, the writ petitioner cannot invite a Court to consider the relative merits of different political theories or economic policies. Moreover, the learned Government Pleader contends referring to the decision dated July 12, 2013 that the rates provided by the first writ petitioner are not clear. Even if such rates quoted by the first writ petitioner are construed to be clear, the same runs counter to the Government policy of not patronizing any periodical publication or media which has a direct political affiliation. On the aspect that the first writ petitioner is a party organ of a particular political party, the learned Government Pleader submits that, the official website of the first writ petitioner states that, the first writ petitioner is a daily organ of CPI(M). He refers to other pages in the official website of the first writ petitioner which according to him clearly states that, the first writ petitioner to be a party organ of CPI(M). He refers to other pages in the official website of the first writ petitioner which according to him clearly states that, the first writ petitioner to be a party organ of CPI(M). He refers to the various articles published in the official website of the first writ petitioner as well as an article published in People’s Democracy which according to him establishes that the first writ petitioner is a party organ of the first writ petitioner. He refers to the role played by a former Chief Minister of the State in relation to the first writ petitioner. He also refers to articles available on BBC online which say that, the first writ petitioner is a party newspaper of CPI(M). In addition thereto he refers to an article on the official website of the first writ petitioner stating that the first writ petitioner is the mouthpiece of the CPI(M). As the affidavit stand, according to the Government Pleader, the State respondent has stated that the first writ petitioner is the political mouthpiece of CPI(M). Although such statement has been denied, according to the Government Pleader, such denial is contrary to the facts and the materials available on record. Since the writ petitioners are seeking equitable relief it is expected that the writ petitioners would come with clean hands. Inasmuch as the writ petitioner have made statements on oath which are contrary to the materials available on record, the writ petitioners have not come with clean hands and, therefore, are not entitled to any equitable relief. The Government Pleader refers to Section 293A of the Companies Act, 1956 as well as Section 182 of the Companies Act, 2013 and submits that, a Government company is debarred from contributing any amount directly or indirectly to any political party. Using such analogy as that of the two provisions of two Central legislations, it is contended that the decision of the State Government could not be faulted. The Government Pleader contends that, registration of a newspaper and its accreditation does not divest such newspaper the character of a particular political party if it is otherwise so. He refers to the audited accounts of the first writ petitioner and submits that, the same clearly indicates that the first writ petitioner has a direct financial relationship with CPI(M). Such political party has absolute financial, administrative and functional control over the writ petitioner. Referring to Bennett Coleman Co. He refers to the audited accounts of the first writ petitioner and submits that, the same clearly indicates that the first writ petitioner has a direct financial relationship with CPI(M). Such political party has absolute financial, administrative and functional control over the writ petitioner. Referring to Bennett Coleman Co. (supra) he submits that, advertisement is a primary source of revenue for any newspaper. Therefore, releasing any advertisement in favour of a party organ would be funding to the party itself. According to the Government Pleader, the decision of the State Government dated July 12, 2013 is not in breach of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The State Government cannot treat the first writ petitioner with other newspapers which are not organs of any political party. The State Government can treat unequals differently with the objective of creating a level playing field in the social, economic and political spheres and he relies upon 2010 Volume 4 Supreme Court Cases page 50 (Union of India v. Rakesh Kumar) in support of such contention. Relying on 2004 Volume 1 Supreme Court Cases page 526 (Express Publications (Madurai) Ltd. v. Union of India) he submits that, reasonable classification based on intelligible differentia is permissible. The Government Pleader seeks to distinguish the unreported decision of the Gauhati High Court in Daily Desher Katha (supra) by submitting that, the findings of the Gauhati High Court that Daily Desher Katha was not an organ of any political party was per incurium and, therefore, should not be treated as a precedent. He points out that, the Gauhati High Court did not consider the central policy as contained in Section 293A of the Companies Act, 1956. On Common Cause (supra) the Government Pleader submits that the DAVP guidelines on which much reliance has been placed by the writ petitioner deal with the eligibility and empanelment of the newspapers/journals or other media, their rates of payment and such like matter. He contends that the first writ petitioner did not adhere to the rate structure it provided to the DAVP in so far as the Government advertisements are concerned. On Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. (supra) and Bennett Coleman Co. (supra) the Government Pleader submits that, the issues before the Supreme Court were different than those that are involved in the present case. On Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. (supra) and Bennett Coleman Co. (supra) the Government Pleader submits that, the issues before the Supreme Court were different than those that are involved in the present case. In the present case he submits that, it is an admitted position that there has not been any reduction of the circulation to the first writ petitioner in spite of the decision of the State Government impugned herein. He, therefore, submits that the writ petition should be dismissed. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and the materials made available on record. The first writ petitioner is a Bengali newspaper having three editions published from Kolkata, Durgapur and Siliguri. The second writ petitioner is the editor of the first writ petitioner. The first writ petitioner is a recognized daily newspaper. The first writ petitioner is duly registered with the Registrar of newspapers under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India. It has been in publication since 1967. The writ petitioners claim that the first writ petitioner has a circulation of not less than 10 lakhs per day. The writ petitioners claim that, the first writ petitioner receives advertisements from various State Governments as well as the Central Government. The writ petitioners complain that since May 20, 2011 the State Government has denied any advertisements to the first writ petitioner. The writ petitioners complain that such denial is without any basis and unconstitutional. During the pendency of the writ petition an Order dated July 1, 2013 was passed requiring the writ petitioners to quote its rates for the State to take a decision in the matter. Pursuant to such order, the writ petitioners gave a quotation of its rates to the Director of Information and Cultural Forums Department, Government of West Bengal. By a decision dated July 12, 2013 such authority has expressed its inability to accept the rates quoted primarily on two counts namely, (i) the rates quoted are not intelligible, and that (ii) the State Government has decided as a policy not to issue any advertisement to any political organ or a newspaper of a political party. Freedom of speech and expression guaranteed as a fundamental right came up for consideration in the context of Newspaper (Price and Page) Act, 1956 and Daily Newspaper (Price and Page) Order, 1960 in Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. (supra). Freedom of speech and expression guaranteed as a fundamental right came up for consideration in the context of Newspaper (Price and Page) Act, 1956 and Daily Newspaper (Price and Page) Order, 1960 in Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. (supra). In such case it has been printed out that, “…………………….freedom of speech and expression are the foundation of all democratic organizations and are essential for the proper functioning of the processes of democracy. Freedom of speech and expression includes freedom of propagation of ideas and that this freedom is ensured by the freedom of circulation. The right to freedom of speech and expression carries with it the right to publish and circulate one’s ideas, opinions and views with complete freedom by resorting to any available means of publication, subject again to such restrictions as could be legitimately imposed under clause (2) of Article 19. The right extends not only to the subject a newspaper is entitled to circulate but also to the volume of circulation. Freedom of speech could not be restricted for the purpose of regulating the commercial aspect of authorities of the newspapers.” In Bennett Coleman Co. (supra) the Import Policy for newsprint for the year 1972 to March 1973 was impeached as an infringement of fundamental rights to freedom of speech and expression in Article 19(1)(a) and the right to equality in Article 14 of the Constitution. On the freedom of the press and the imposition of restriction on advertisement is the newspapers, it has been held as follows:- “34. Publication means dissemination and circulation. The press has to carry on its activity by keeping in view the class of readers, the conditions of labour, price of material, availability of advertisements, size of paper and the different kinds of news comments and views and advertisements which are to be published and circulated. The law which lays excessive and prohibitive burden which would restrict the circulation of a newspaper will not be saved by Article 19(2). If the area of advertisement is restricted, price of paper goes up. If the price goes up circulation will go down. This was held in Sakal Papers case to be the direct consequence of curtailment of advertisement. The law which lays excessive and prohibitive burden which would restrict the circulation of a newspaper will not be saved by Article 19(2). If the area of advertisement is restricted, price of paper goes up. If the price goes up circulation will go down. This was held in Sakal Papers case to be the direct consequence of curtailment of advertisement. The freedom of a newspaper to publish any number of pages or to circulate it to any number of persons has been held by this Court to be an integral part of the freedom of speech and expression. This freedom is violated by placing restraints upon it or by placing restraints upon something which is an essential part of that freedom. A restraint on the number of pages, a restraint on circulation and a restraint on advertisements would affect the fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(a) on the aspects of propagation, publication and circulation.” “45. It is indisputable that by freedom of the press is meant the right of all citizens to speak, publish and express their views. The freedom of the press embodies the right of the people to read. The freedom of the press is not antithetical to the right of the people to speak and express.” It goes on to hold in paragraph 67 as follows:- “67. …………………………. The loss on advertisements may not only entail the closing down but also affect the circulation and thereby impinge on freedom of speech and expression.” Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) considers whether the imposition of import duty on the newsprint has the direct effect of crippling the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by the Constitution or not. It has been held as follows:- “32. In today’s free world freedom of press is the heart of social and political intercourse. The press has now assumed the role of the public educator making formal and non-formal education possible in a large scale particularly in the developing world, where television and other kinds of modern communication are not still available for all sections of society. The purpose of the press is to advance the public interest by publishing facts and opinions without which a democratic electorate cannot make responsible judgments. Newspapers being purveyors of news and views having a bearing on public administration very often carry material which would not be palatable to Governments and other authorities. The purpose of the press is to advance the public interest by publishing facts and opinions without which a democratic electorate cannot make responsible judgments. Newspapers being purveyors of news and views having a bearing on public administration very often carry material which would not be palatable to Governments and other authorities. The authors of the articles which are published in newspapers have to be critical of the actions of Government in order to expose its weaknesses. Such articles tend to become an irritant or even a threat to power. Governments naturally take recourse to suppress newspapers publishing such articles in different ways. Over the years, Governments in different parts of the world have used diverse methods to keep press under control. They have followed carrot-and-stick methods. Secret payments of money, open monetary grants and subventions, grants of lands, postal concessions, Government advertisements, conferment of titles on editors and proprietors of newspapers, inclusion of press barons in cabinet and inner political councils etc. constitute one method of influencing the press. The other kind of pressure is one of using force against the press. Enactment of laws providing for pre-censorship, seizures, interference with the transit of newspapers and demanding security deposit, imposition of restriction on the price of newspapers, on the number of pages of newspapers and the area that can be devoted for advertisements, withholding of Government advertisements, increase of postal rates, imposition of taxes on newsprint, canalization of import of newsprint with the object of making it unjustly costlier etc. are some of the ways in which Governments have tried to interfere with freedom of press. It is with a view to checking such malpractices which interfere with free flow of information, democratic constitutions all over the world have made provisions guaranteeing the freedom of speech and expression laying down the limits of interference with it. It is, therefore, the primary duty of all the national courts to uphold the said freedom and invalidate all laws or administrative actions which interfere with it, contrary to the constitutional mandate.” “84. Freedom of press as the petitioners rightly asserts means freedom from interference from authority which would have the effect of interference with the content and circulation of newspapers. …………………………………….” Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) notes that newspapers often carry materials not palatable to the Government. Such materials tend to become an irritant and even a tenant to power. Freedom of press as the petitioners rightly asserts means freedom from interference from authority which would have the effect of interference with the content and circulation of newspapers. …………………………………….” Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) notes that newspapers often carry materials not palatable to the Government. Such materials tend to become an irritant and even a tenant to power. It notes that many Governments tend to adopt the carrot and stick methods to keep the press under control. It notes that withholding of Governments advertisements is one of the kinds of pressure applied by the Government to keep the non-conforming section the press under control. It enjoins that “…………………..the primary duty of all the national courts is to uphold the said freedom and invalidate all laws or administrative actions which interfere with it, contrary to the constitutional mandate.” The Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Ushodaya Publications Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has observed that though the expression “freedom of press” does not occur in Article 19(1)(a), freedom of press is a part of the right of free speech and expression and is covered by Article 19(1)(a). It has also observed that the freedom of circulation of a newspaper is necessarily involved in freedom of speech and expression and hence enjoys the protection of Article 19(1)(a). The Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court in Dainik Sambad & Anr. (supra) has considered the following issues:- “18. Can a newspaper to which allotment of Government Advertisements happened to be gradually reduced complain of discrimination? Would it affect its freedom of press requiring or justifying judicial review?...............................................” It has been held in paragraph 20 thereof as follows:- “20. Discriminatory allotment of Government advertisements to different newspapers of the same category by the State Government will impair the freedom of press and will therefore be violative of Arts.14 and 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. ...…” In M/s. Omega Printers and Publishers Pvt. Ltd. (supra) the Gauhati High Court has held that the Government has the power to remove a newspaper from the approved list of newspapers entitled to publish after giving a notice of show cause, an opportunity of hearing and by passing a reasoned order. Apart from such power, the Government does not have the power to regulate the circulation of a newspaper by giving less advertisement to a newspaper which is not following its policies. Apart from such power, the Government does not have the power to regulate the circulation of a newspaper by giving less advertisement to a newspaper which is not following its policies. Sushil Chaudhury & Anr. (supra) has found a policy of the Government to allot 24% out the total 30% of advertisement to one daily and the remaining 6% to other dailies belonging to the same class to be violative of Articles 19(1)(a) and Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The authorities noted above lay down that freedom of speech and expression is guaranteed as a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Although freedom of the press has not been expressly provided in Article 19(1)(a), the Courts have read the existence of the freedom of press in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Courts have considered freedom of the press as one founded upon and emanating out of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Freedom of the press includes freedom of circulation as well as freedom to publish matter and propagate ideas by a newspaper. Such freedom is however not absolute. It is subjected to reasonable restrictions that may be imposed in accordance with Article 19(2) of the Constitution. The role of a free press in ensuring a thriving, healthy and flourishing democracy is acknowledged by society. A free press in the foundation for a free and fair social order where every member of the society has an equal opportunity of success. A free press facilitates free exchange of ideas. A free exchange of ideas would be in public interest as the same would allow the public to make a more informed and, therefore, a more beneficial decision for themselves. Advertisement is a primary source of revenue for a newspaper as noted in Bennett Coleman Co. (supra). Denial of advertisements would therefore raise the cost price of a newspaper for the ultimate reader, thereby adversely affecting the circulation of a newspaper. The petitioners here complain of denial of advertisements by the State Government from May 2011. This is not denied on behalf of the State Government in its affidavit. The justification put forward the State Government is not releasing any advertisement to the first writ petitioner is that the newspaper has a direct political affiliation. The Government Pleader has relied upon the official website of the first writ petitioner and other materials. This is not denied on behalf of the State Government in its affidavit. The justification put forward the State Government is not releasing any advertisement to the first writ petitioner is that the newspaper has a direct political affiliation. The Government Pleader has relied upon the official website of the first writ petitioner and other materials. I have considered such materials relied upon by the learned Government Pleader in support of his contention that, the first writ petitioner has a direct political affiliation. Ownership of the newspaper is not a criteria to deny advertisements by the State. The newspaper concerned is not a mouthpiece of any political party. It does not claim to be a mouthpiece of CPI(M). Others may consider it as a mouthpiece. On the basis of the materials made available to me, I am not in a position to bring myself to return a finding that the first writ petitioner is an organ of CPI(M). The Government Pleader has relied heavily on the so-called policy decision of the State Government as expressed in the decision dated July 12, 2013. The decision dated July 12, 2013 considers the first writ petitioner as a Bengali newspaper which furthers the ideology and aims of CPI(M). It considers the newspaper to be a vehicle of political agenda and proceeds not to be equated the same with other apolitical daily newspapers. It finds that the readership of the first writ petitioner is confined to a particular segment of the populace. It notes that the readership of the first writ petitioner is restricted to a certain segment of society which subscribes to a specific political ideology. It records that as a matter of policy the State Government does not release any advertisement in any newspaper or periodical which has a political affiliation. The so-called policy decision of the State of West Bengal not to release any advertisement to any newspaper or periodical which has a political affiliation has been placed. The materials made available on record do not disclose the level of the State Government at which such so-called policy decision of the State Government has been taken. This policy decision without any else being placed and only on the basis of the assertion in the decision dated July 12, 2013 cannot be equated with a law within the meaning of Article 13 of the Constitution of India. This policy decision without any else being placed and only on the basis of the assertion in the decision dated July 12, 2013 cannot be equated with a law within the meaning of Article 13 of the Constitution of India. Political affiliation per se would not disentitle a newspaper from publishing itself. The nature of ownership of a newspaper cannot be a criteria to deny advertisements by a Government. This contention of the State Government can be looked into from a different angle. The Central Government as well as other State Governments does not consider the first writ petitioner to be a mouthpiece of any political party. Its so-called political affiliation is not an impediment to the Central Government or to the other State Governments to release advertisements to it. The so-called restrictive populace which subscribes to the first writ petitioner is again no ground for the Central Government and the other State Governments to deny advertisements to it. In such circumstances I find no merit in the contentions of the State Government that the first writ petitioner has to be denied advertisement on the ground of policy of the first writ petitioner, its restrictive circulation and its political affiliation. The policy of the State not being placed on record, the question of considering such policy in light of the ratio laid down in Federation of Railway Officers Association (supra) and BALCO Employees’ Union (Regd.) (supra) does not arise. Moreover, such policy not being on record, there is no material to consider whether such policy decision could be considered as a reasonable restriction within the meaning of Article 19(2) or not. There are two other grounds which are cited in the decision of the State Government dated July 12, 2013 to deny advertisements to the first writ petitioner. The first amongst them being that the Government as a buyer has a right to decide which vendor receives it business. The State Government however has no right to discriminate amongst similarly situate. The first writ petitioner has to be considered in the same category as that of other newspapers in the category. The decision to award an advertisement or not must be taken by the State Government on the same parameters as that it decides to award it the other newspapers in the same category as that of the first writ petitioner. The first writ petitioner has to be considered in the same category as that of other newspapers in the category. The decision to award an advertisement or not must be taken by the State Government on the same parameters as that it decides to award it the other newspapers in the same category as that of the first writ petitioner. The second ground is that the rate submitted by the first writ petitioner is ambiguous, contradictory and confusing. To avoid controversy on this issue, I am of the view that, it would be in the interest of justice to allow the writ petitioners to quote its rates afresh to the State Government. If the State Government finds any ambiguity therein, it would be open to the State Government to seek clarification and for the writ petitioners to clarify the same. In view of the discussions above, the decision dated July 12, 2013 of the State Government is set aside. The State authorities will consider and grant the first writ petitioner advertisements as that of the other newspapers in the category in which the first writ petitioner is, in accordance with law. W.P. No. 714 of 2012 is allowed on the terms as aforesaid. No order as to costs.