JUDGMENT 1. This petition has been filed by the Editor of Hindi Monthly Magazine 'Drishtant' contending that the action taken by the fifth respondent under the impugned order dated 5th October, 2015, is an act of undue haste and in violation of principles of natural justice as well as in violation of the mandatory and statutory provisions of Section 8B of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867. 2. The facts in short bereft of any details are that the petitioner is required to comply with the provisions of Section 5 of the aforesaid Act and has to make a declaration to the effect that the Magazine is being printed through the notified and declared printers and publishers. The action appears to have been taken on the ground that this contingency has been violated and that the petitioner has been unable to establish in his show cause that the printing of the Magazine was as per the declaration made. Consequently, the orders passed earlier in favour of the petitioner on 8th April, 2015 and the certificate of registration dated 10th July, 2015 have been withdrawn alleging that the petitioner had obtained the said orders without informing the competent authority about such violation. 3. Sri C.B. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Section 8B is a categorical provision which leaves no room for doubt that the action of cancellation of such declaration has to be undertaken after the competent Magistrate forms an opinion on the basis of material received that a proposed action is warranted and for that the concerned person has to be put to notice for showing cause against the action so proposed to be taken. This has to be done followed by the holding of an enquiry and then passing of an order. 4. Sri Pandey submits that two complaints are alleged to have been received against the petitioner on which the first notice issued was on 4th July, 2015 copy whereof is Annexure 7-A to the writ petition. The second notice was issued on another complaint which is dated 9th July, 2015 copy whereof is Annexure 5 to the writ petition. 5. Sri Pandey submits that both these notices do not conform to the aforesaid statutory requirement of Section8B and therefore the entire proceedings are vitiated. 6. The second notice was issued on another complaint which is dated 9th July, 2015 copy whereof is Annexure 5 to the writ petition. 5. Sri Pandey submits that both these notices do not conform to the aforesaid statutory requirement of Section8B and therefore the entire proceedings are vitiated. 6. Learned Additional Advocate General for the State has taken an objection to the maintainability of the petition on the ground that the petitioner himself admits of a statutory remedy of appeal available under Section 8C of the Act and in such a situation this petition should not be entertained. 7. To this, Sri Pandey in his reply has invited the attention of the Court to the ratio of the division bench judgment in the case of Nishpaksh Pratidin Daily Newspaper v. Union of India and others, Writ Petition No. 1285 of 2012 decided on 3rd May, 2012 copy whereof is Annexure 11 to the writ petition to urge that availing the remedy of appeal on the facts of the present case is not a compulsion and the division bench judgement therefore takes care of the situation so as to maintain this petition. 8. The first question therefore is as to whether the petitioner should be relegated to the alternative remedy of appeal or not on the given circumstances of the case. 9. The provisions of Section 8B are as follows "[8B. 8. The first question therefore is as to whether the petitioner should be relegated to the alternative remedy of appeal or not on the given circumstances of the case. 9. The provisions of Section 8B are as follows "[8B. Cancellation of declaration.--If, on an application made to him by the Press Registrar or any other person or otherwise, the Magistrate empowered to authenticate a declaration under this Act, is of opinion that any declaration made in respect of a newspaper should be cancelled, he may, after giving the person concerned an opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken, hold an inquiry into the matter and if, after considering the cause, if any, shown by such person and after giving him an opportunity of being heard, he is satisfied that - (i) the newspaper, in respect of which the declaration has been made is being published in contravention of the provisions of this Act or rules made thereunder; or (ii) the newspaper mentioned in the declaration bears 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; or (iii) the printer or publisher has ceased to be the printer or publisher of the newspaper mentioned in such declaration; or (iv) the declaration was made on false representation or on the concealment of any material fact or in respect of a periodical work which is not a newspaper; The Magistrate may, by order, cancel the declaration and shall forward as soon as possible a copy of the order to the person making or subscribing the declaration and also to the Press Registrar.]" 10. A perusal of the said provision requires that if information is received either on an application by the Press Registrar or any other person or otherwise the Magistrate empowered to authenticate a declaration under this Act, should give the person concerned an opportunity of showing cause after forming an opinion to the effect that the matter requires inquiry and also inform the person concerned about the action proposed to be taken followed by an inquiry. 11. 11. Thus the aforesaid provision clearly indicates formation of an opinion by the competent authority to proceed against the concerned person on the basis of material received that a proposed action is required to be taken on such material and an opportunity of show cause should be given thereafter. 12. In the instant case notices have been given to the petitioner twice against two separate complaints which were received. The first notice dated 4th July, 2015 recites that the petitioner has obtained the declaration on concealment of relevant information. This information was tendered by one Mr. Z.A. Azmi who in his letter dated 29th March, 2015 informed the Magistrate that there was some inquiry and that by concealing facts this fact has come to light that the declaration was obtained by such concealment. Consequently, the Magistrate put the petitioner to notice to give a reply to the contents of the said complaint made by Sri Z.A. Azmi. The petitioner submitted his reply to the same. 13. The second notice was issued to the petitioner on 9th July, 2015 where the allegation was that one Mr. Sanjay Maurya had made a complaint and the said complaint was enquired into, and annexing copy of a report, the petitioner was called upon to answer the said notice. A copy of the report has been filed which is dated 25th March, 2015. Thus it is clear that there was a report dated 25th March, 2015 but it is not known as to what inquiry was conducted or was made known to the petitioner while issuing the first notice dated 4th July, 2015. It is thus clear from a perusal of both the notices that the entire information was not tendered to the petitioner in relation to the alleged action which has now been taken on the basis of such notices nor there is any indication of either a prima facie satisfaction forming an opinion or any indication of proposed action. 14. The notices dated 4th July, 2015 and 9th July, 2015 both do not record any satisfaction in the shape of an opinion as desired under the statutory provisions of Section 8B proposing to take action against the petitioner. There is no whisper in the both notices that the action proposed to be taken is to cancel the declaration. 14. The notices dated 4th July, 2015 and 9th July, 2015 both do not record any satisfaction in the shape of an opinion as desired under the statutory provisions of Section 8B proposing to take action against the petitioner. There is no whisper in the both notices that the action proposed to be taken is to cancel the declaration. Consequently, the petitioner had no occasion to respond to any such proposed action and it was a mere communication which was not in conformity with the aforesaid statutory requirement. 15. Sri Pandey is therefore right in his submission that the notices dated 4th July, 2015 and 9th July, 2015 are not in accordance with Section 8-B of the Act. 16. Consequently, we are of the opinion that once the Magistrate himself had not formed the opinion on the basis of any material so as to propose an action then in that event the response expected from the petitioner would be only on the factual aspects of the complaint and not on the proposed action. This therefore vitiates the entire action as it is not in accordance with Section 8B of the 1867 Act. 17. Having recorded the aforesaid finding, we are clearly of the opinion that the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner comes to his aid. The notice therefore being defective, the orders passed by the City Magistrate - Respondent No. 5 impugned herein dated 5th October, 2015 cannot be sustained. 18. In view of the aforesaid findings recorded, we do not propose to relegate the petitioner to the alternative remedy of filing an appeal. 19. Learned Additional Advocate General contends that the State does not propose to file any counter affidavit at this stage and the matter can be revisited by the competent magistrate by complying with the provisions of Section 8B. Sri S.B. Pandey for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 also does not propose to file any counter affidavit at this stage. 20. In the aforesaid circumstances, we do not find it necessary to issue any notices to the respondent Nos. 6 to 9 at this stage and the matter can be dealt with by the competent authority in the light of the observations made hereinabove. 21. Consequently, we allow the petition and quash the order dated 5th October, 2015. 22. 20. In the aforesaid circumstances, we do not find it necessary to issue any notices to the respondent Nos. 6 to 9 at this stage and the matter can be dealt with by the competent authority in the light of the observations made hereinabove. 21. Consequently, we allow the petition and quash the order dated 5th October, 2015. 22. It shall be open to the competent authority to proceed in accordance with law and take appropriate action if it is permissible in the light of the provisions of 1867 Act and the observations made hereinabove.