http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: GOPAL DASS SHARMA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, JAMMU & ANR,.

DATE OF JUDGMENT10/11/1972

BENCH: SIKRI, S.M. (CJ) BENCH: SIKRI, S.M. (CJ) RAY, A.N. PALEKAR, D.G. BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH DWIVEDI, S.N.

CITATION:  1973 AIR  213            1973 SCR  (2) 969  1973 SCC  (1) 159

ACT: Press  and Registration of Books Act (25 of 1867) ss. 6  and 8B-Scope   of-Cancellation   of  declaration   if   violates fundamental right of carrying on business.

HEADNOTE: Before a magistrate cancels a declaration under s. 8B of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, he has to give  a notice and opportunity to the person concerned to show cause against  the action proposed and hold an enquiry.  If he  is thereafter satisfied that (a) the newspaper is published  in contravention  of  the provisions of the Act or  rules  made thereunder, or (b) the newspaper bears a title which is  the same  as, or similar to, that of any other newspaper  either in  the  same  language or in the same  State,  or  (c)  the printer  or  publisher  has  ceased to  be  its  printer  or publisher,  or  (d)  the  declaration  was  made  on   false representation  or concealment of any material fact, he  may cancel the declaration. [971 C-F] In   the  present  case,  the  petitioner  gave  the   title ’Blitzkrieg’  as his first preference for the title  of  his newspaper  and the magistrate authenticated the  declaration as required by s. 6 of the Act.  Thereafter, the  magistrate cancelled  the declaration on the ground that the  title  is the  same as that of ’Blitz’ without giving any  opportunity to the petitioner. In a petition under Art. 32, HELD : (1) The order of cancellation should be quashed. [972 B] (a)  It  violated  the petitioner’s  fundamental  rights  to carry  on  the  occupation of editor  and  the  business  of publishing a newspaper. [972 A-B] (b)  The order was passed with unseemly haste without giving any opportunity to the petitioner. [971 H] (2)  The  Second notice given to the petitioner  during  the pendency  of the writ proceedings should also be quashed  as the  titles ’Blitzkrieg’ and ’Blitz’ are  totally  different titles  and  there  is no ground  for  cancellation  of  the declaration. [971 G-H; 972 B-C]

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

JUDGMENT: ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 270 of 1972. Under  Article 32 of the Constitution of India for  the  en- forcement of fundamental rights. Petitioner appeared in person. R. N. Sachthey for the respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY,  J.-This  writ petition is directed  against  an  order dated 8 July, 1971 made by the District Magistrate, Jammu. 970 The  District Magistrate by the said order under section  8B (ii) of the Press & Registration of Books Act 1867, referred to as the Act, cancelled the petitioner’s declaration  dated 23 April, 1971. The  petitioner  is a citizen of India. lie is  a  permanent resident  of the State of Jammu & Kashmir.  On 2 June,  1970 he made an application to the District Magistrate, Jammu for permission  to start a weekly paper in English  from  Jammu. The  petitioner in accordance with the rules under  the  Act gave  a list of 11 names in order of preference.  The  first preference given by the petitioner was "Blitzkrieg". The petitioner on 9 February, 1971 made a declaration  under section  5 of the Act giving particulars of  the  newspaper. the title of the newspaper, the language in which it was  to be published as also the periodicity of the publication.   A second declaration was given by the. petitioner on 23 April, 1971.   The second declaration was necessitated  because  of two  changes.  One was as regards the, day  of  publication. It was shifted from Saturday to Tuesday.  The other was with regard  to  the name of the printing  press.   The  District Magistrate,  under section 6 of the Act,  authenticated  the declaration  made  by the petitioner.   A  declaration  made under  rules laid down in section 5 and authenticated  under section  6  shall be necessary before the newspaper  can  be published. The  first  issue  of  the  petitioner’s  weekly  paper  was published on 20 March, 1971. Some time in the month of July 1971 the petitioner was serv- ed with a notice dated 7 July, 1971 asking him to show cause why  the  declaration  dated 23 April,  1971  might  not  be cancelled  inasmuch as the petitioner’s title of the  weekly newspaper Blitzkrieg was similar to that of Blitz  published from  Bombay.  The petitioner was asked to show cause  by  8 August, 1971. The petitioner came to know on 16 July 1971 from the  notice dated  13 July, 1971 served upon the Keeper of the  Printing Press  where the petitioner printed the issue of  his  paper that the declaration of the petitioner for ’Blitzkrieg’  had been cancelled by the District Magistrate, Jammu by an order dated 8 July 1971. The petitioner alleges the District Magistrate’s displeasure with the petitioner.  Though the District Magistrate in  the notice  dated 7 July, 1971 gave the petitioner  one  month’s time  till  8 August, 1971 to show cause, yet  the  District Magistrate cancelled the petitioner’s declaration on 8 July, 1971. 971 The  petitioner  challenges the validity of the  order.  the petitioner  alleges  the  order  to  be  violative  of   his fundamental   rights  to  carry  on  occupation,  trade   or business. The District Magistrate in his affidavit alleged that in the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

notice  dated  7  July 1971 the date 8 August.  1971  was  a typing error.  Therefore, by an order dated 8 November  1971 the  notice was withdrawn and a fresh notice was  served  on the petitioner to show cause by 20 November, 1971 as to  why his declaration should not be cancelled. The  petitioner  obtained a rule on 2 August, 1971.   It  is apparent that the District Magistrate took, the steps  after the petitioner had exposed the wrongful and illegal acts. The cancellation of the declaration is made under section 8B of  the  Act.   The Magistrate is to give a  notice  to  the person  concerned.   An opportunity is to be given  to  show cause  against  the action proposed.  An enquiry  is  to  be held.  An opportunity is to be given to the person concerned to  being heard.  If the Magistrate is thereafter  satisfied that (a) the newspaper is published in contravention of  the provisions  of the Act or rules made thereunder, or (b)  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  (c)  the,  printer or publisher has  ceased  to  be  the printer  or  publisher of the newspaper  mentioned  in  such decla ration,  or  (d)  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. In the present case the respondents justify the cancellation on  the ground that the title of Blitzkrieg is the  same  as that  of Blitz.  In the, affidavit the  District  Magistrate stated that the title of Blitzkrieg "had been  inadvertently cleared in favour of" the petitioner.  That is not a  ground for  cancellation of declaration.  The  petitioner,gave  the title  Blitzkrieg  as the first in order of  preference.  11 titles   were  given.   The  Magistrate  authenticated   the petitioner’s   declaration   in  respect   of   the.   title Blitzkrieg.  The newspaper Blitz cannot be said to be either a  recent  publication  or to be  unknown.   The  petitioner contended  that Blitz and Blitzkrieg were different  titles. So they are. The  cancellation was wrongful.  It was hasty.  No  opportu- nity  was  given to the petitioner.  ’The explanation  of  a typing error with regard to the date indicates the  unseemly haste with which the District Magistrate took action against the petitioner. 972 It was said on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner had  a right of appeal under section 8C of the Act.   It  is also  said that no fundamental right of the  petitioner  was infringed by the cancellation.  The petitioner’s fundamental right  to carry on the occupation of editor of newspaper  as well  as business of publishing a newspaper is infringed  by the illegal act. The  order  of  the District Magistrate dated  8  July  1971 canceling the petitioner’s declaration is quashed.  We  have taken notice of the subsequent event during the pendency  of this rule when the District Magistrate issued another notice dated  9 November, 1971 asking the petitioner to show  cause why  the declaration should not be cancelled.   That  notice dated  9 November, 1971 is also quashed.  There will  be  no order as to costs. V.P.S.                          Petition allowed. 973