ORDER
M.K. Sharma, J.
1. By this application the petitioners seek a direction to the Press Council of India to give inspection of the papers furnished by respondents Nos. 2 and 3 and Indian Newspaper Society in response to the notice of reconstitution of the Press Council of India. The petitioners have stated that they had made an application dated 7-2-1995 before the Press Council of India for inspection of the list of members furnished by respondents Nos. 2 and 3 and Indian Newspaper Society and also the relevant papers connected with the names of organisations which recommended four names to be included in the reconstituted Press Council of India. It is further stated that the Press Council of India by its letter dated 13-2-1995 informed the petitioners that the inspection would not be granted unless this Court passed orders in this regard. According to the petitioners the aforesaid stand taken by the respondent No. 1 is arbitrary and unreasonable, and unless such an inspection is given to the petitioners, it would not be possible to establish the case advanced by the petitioners.
2. Respondent No. 1, on the other hand, submitted a reply to the aforesaid application wherein it is stated that in pursuance of the request filed by the petitioners seeking for inspecting certain papers the respondent No. 1, as per legal advice, by letter dated 13-2-1995 advised the petitioners that since this Court was seized of the matter they could make an application to the Court and seek orders from this Court for the inspection of the record. It is further stated in the reply that the documents, inspection of which is sought by the petitioners are not public documents but are personal records of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 and Indian Newspaper Society and they also include documents relating to accounts of the respective associations,
3. Mr. Parekh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1, however, submitted before us that the respondent No. 1 is willing to submit all the aforesaid documents in a sealed cover before this Court and, if the court so desires, may make an order for the inspection of the said documents in favor of the petitioners.
4. We have heard the respective arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties. We may, at this stage, refer to the order passed by this Court in C. W. No. 1008/1992. By the aforesaid order the petitioners were allowed inspection of the records relating to respondents Nos. 2 and 3 herein by order dated 15-3-1994 which related to the reconstitution of the erstwhile Council which ceased to exist on expiry of its term. This Court while directing as aforesaid held thus :
'After we have heard the matter to some extent, it is agreed between the parties that petitioner may be given inspection of the documents relating to All Indian Small and Medium Newspapers Federation, Delhi, which are in the same category as the petitioner and entitled to become member of the Press Council under clause (b) of subsection (3) of Section 5 of the Press Council Act.'
5. It has been brought to our notice that before the aforesaid inspection as ordered by this Court, could be completed, the term of the 5th Press Council expired and notification for reconstitution of fresh Press Council has since been issued as against which claims have been submitted along with the documents. The said documents have been supplied to the Council by the respective associations including the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 for the purpose of establishing their claims, to be recognised by the Council under Section 5(4) of the Press Council Act. It is some of these documents which the petitioners seek to inspect so as to enable it to effectively pursue the cause which it has brought before, this Court through the present application. The petitioners are also one of the claimants who is also staking a claim to be recognised by the Council under Section 5(4) of the Press Council Act and thereforee, in our opinion there is a lis between the petitioners and the respondents Nos. 2 and 3. We may also emphasise that respondent No. 1 has not claimed any privilege in respect of the said documents nor any such application has been filed before us claiming privilege of the said documents. On the other hand the specific stand of respondent No. 1 is that since the said documents are not public documents and only personal documents of respondents Nos. 2 and 3, the inspection of the same could not be given to the petitioners. In our view, since the said documents have been filed with the Press Council of India by the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 in order to substantiate their claims to be recognised by the Council under Section 5(4) of the Press Council Act there could not be any secrecy about the said documents nor could they be said to be purely personal records of the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 as they form pan of the official records maintained in the office of respondent No. 1. Accordingly, we do not see any reason why the documents furnished by respondents Nos. 2 and 3 before the Press Council of India in support of their claims could not be inspected by the counsel for the petitioners. Besides similar prayer for inspection having been allowed to the petitioners for the inspection of the documents furnished by the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 for the earlier reconstitution of the Press Council of India on being agreed to by respondent No. 1, we do not see any reason why on this occasion we should reject and take a different stand. We also do not find the stand taken by respondent No. 1 of furnishing the documents before this Court in sealed cover and thereafter allowing the petitioners to inspect the said documents, if this Court allows such a prayer, to be reasonable, and in our opinion, in case such an order could be made, we can also order for giving inspection of the said records by the respondent No. I itself.
6. Accordingly, we allow the prayer of the petitioners for inspection of the list of members furnished by respondents Nos. 2 and 3 and Indian Newspaper Society in response to the notice of the reconstitution of the Press Council of India. The inspection shall be given within 2 weeks. With the aforesaid observations we dispose of this application.
7. Order accordingly.