Full Judgment
W.P.No.15611/2012 (Dharmendra Sharma & ors ..Vs..District Magistrate, Jabalpur & ors.) 09-10-2012 Shri Swapnil Ganguly, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Sankalp Kochar, learned counsel for the respondents No.2 to 6.
Shri Pushpendra Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent No.7.
Shri Pushpendra Kaurav, learned Dy.
A.G.for the State/respondents.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
The petitioners have filed this petition being aggrieved by the orders dated 15-2-2012 and 22-6-2012 passed by the District Magistrate, Jabalpur (Respondent No.1).in Case No.3B-121/2011-12 initiated by the petitioners by filing an application under Section 8B of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”.).It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in spite of directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.19393/2011, dated 25-11-2011 directing the respondent/Magistrate to decide the matter as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of eight months from the date of the order, the authority concerned has not decided the matter till not and by the impugned orders has directed the parties, including the petitioneRs.to argue on preliminary objection filed by the respondents No.2 to 6 as to the maintainability of the application under Section 8B of the Act.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that under the provisions of Section 8B of the Act on an application made to the Magistrate by the Press Registrar or any other person or otherwise, the Magistrate concerned may, after giving the person concerned an opportunity of showing cause against the proposed action to be taken, hold an enquiry into the matter and cancel a declaration made in respect of a newspaper.
It is submitted that the provisions of Section 8B of the Act does not provide for rejecting an application made by a person on the ground of malafide or maintainability and, therefore, the impugned orders of the District Magistrate asking the petitioners to file reply to the preliminary objection filed by the respondents No.2 to 6 as to the maintainability of the application filed by the petitioners is contrary to the provisions of law and deserves to be quashed.
It is further submitted that the District Magistrate concerned be directed to consider and decide the application filed by the petitioners in accordance with law keeping in mind the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.19393/2011 decided on 25-11-2011.
The learned counsel entering appearance on behalf of the respondent No.7 has supported the stand taken by the petitioners and has submitted that he has filed an application for impleading him as a party in the proceedings which has been allowed and he has also stated that his application for impleading him as a party to the proceedings be treated as his reply.
It is submitted that he has also supported the stand taken by the petitioners before the Magistrate for cancelling the declaration issued in favour of the respondents No.2 to 6.
The learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.2 to 6 submits that the aforesaid respondents have tendered full cooperation in the proceedings and further undertake to do so.
It is submitted that the proceedings have not been finalized by the Magistrate on account of delay caused by the petitioners themselves as the petitioners are insisting on deciding the matter only after reconstituting the records which has not been done till date.
It is further submitted that the respondents No.2 to 6 undertake to file a reply to the application filed under Section 8B of the Act by the petitioners within three weeks from today.
He has further pointed out that in another identical application filed by one Ajay Jha and others similar orders had been passed by the Magistrate against which Ajay Jha and others had filed a W.P.No.2299/2012 raising similar grounds which was disposed of by this Court by order dated 21-2-2012 with a direction to the authority to decide the matter expeditiously without giving any further indulgence at the interlocutory stage as there is nothing in the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 to suggest that the strict rule prescribed under the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable.
It is submitted that in view of the aforesaid order passed by this Court in W.P.No.2299/2012 similar order be passed by this Court in the present petition.
The learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State/respondents, on instructions from Akshat Singh, The Additional Collector, Jabalpur, who is present in Court, submits that the District Magistrate has high regards and respect for the orders passed and the directions issued by this Court and the authority concerned is making all efforts to ensure that the matter is decided by the authority within the period stipulated by this Court but on account of the preliminary and other objections being taken by the respondents No.2 to 6 the matter could not be decided.
It is further submitted that there are in fact three applications under Section 8B of the Act against the respondents No.2 to 6 which are pending before the authority one of which has been filed by Smt.
Hemlata Agrawal who is alleged to be partner of the firm and, therefore, finalization of proceedings is taking time on account of diveRs.issues raised by the parties.
It is stated on instructions that the authority shall make all efforts to reconstitute the records by obtaining documents from the authority of the Central Government and other places and decide the matter as early as possible.
In view of the aforesaid statement of the learned Dy.
Advocate General and the undertaking given by him on instructions and in view of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.2299/2012, the petition filed by the petitioners is disposed of with a direction to the respondents No.2 to 6 to file a return/reply within three weeks as undertaken by them with a further direction to the respondent/District Magistrate, Jabalpur, to reconstitute the records and decide the matter on merits as early as possible by taking into consideration all aspects of the matter in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid directions the petition filed by the petitioners stands disposed of.
C.C.as per rules.
(R.S.Jha) Judge mct