Gujarat High Court
Sandesh Limited vs Chandulal Jethalal Jaiswal on 18 February, 2005
Equivalent citations: AIR2005GUJ219, AIR 2005 GUJARAT 219, (2006) 38 ALLINDCAS 766 (GUJ), (2005) 3 GCD 2635 (GUJ), 2006 (54) ALLCRIC 59 SOC, (2006) 4 GUJ LR 3506, (2006) 1 CURCRIR 294, (2005) 3 CURCC 559
Author: Jayant Patel
Bench: Jayant Patel
JUDGMENT Jayant Patel, J.
1. Heard Mr. S.J. Shahfor the original petitioner, Mr. G.D. Bhatt for respondent No. 2 and Mr. Chandulal Jethalal Jaiswal, the respondent No. 1 in the main petition as well as applicant in Civil Application No. 133/05 who is appearing as party in person. Since the party in person was appearing I have heard him in detail. Main petition is for challenging the order, dated 26.4.93 passed by the Press Council of India.
2. Mr. Shah, at the outset, submitted that the petitioner is desirous to withdraw the petition and therefore permission may be granted to the petitioner to withdraw the petition. Mr. Bhatt, Ld. Advocate for the respondent No. 2-Press Council of India has left the matter to the court. Mr. Bhatt submitted that he is supporting the order passed by the Press Council of India, however, for withdrawal of the petition, he leaves the matter to the court.
3. The respondent No. 1, Mr. Jaiswal who has also preferred Misc. Civil Application No. 133/05, objected to the permission to be granted to the petitioner to withdraw the petition on the grounds as mentioned in the civil application and in furtherance of the said civil application he has also submitted written synopsis. The objection is mainly on two grounds, i.e. one is that the original petitioner has made false statements in the petition and the second ground is that the withdrawal should not be permitted without payment of compensation of not less than Rs.2 crores to him. In support of the first objection, it has been submitted interalia that the statement made in para 13 is false. The statement made at para 13 of the petition reads as under:
"(13) That on account of death of the Editor of Sandesh Shri Chimanbhai Somabhai Patel and Shri Dinesh Pathak who was editing Baroda pages no action could be taken against the adjudication order made by the Press Council of India. That, however, the petitioner herein, is aggrieved by the said order of adjudication and that therefore seeks to challenge the same by this petition."
The contention as sought to be canvassed on behalf of the original respondent No. 1/applicant was that after the order passed by the Press Council of India, Chimanbhai Somabhai Patel was surviving and therefore the statement made that on account of the death of the Editor the order could not be pursued is false.
4. In my view, the truth of the statement can be tested on the date which the affidavit has been filed, i.e. on 26.1.1996 and it is not the case of the applicant that on the date when the statement was made on affidavit Chimanbhai Patel had not died. It was also submitted that the prayer in the petition is for quashing of the order passed by the Press Council of India is misleading to this court and in the submission of original respondent No. 1 now the order of the Press Council of India can not be challenged in any court of law. It would be incorrect to state that the order of the Press Council of India can not be quashed by the High Court exercising constitutional power and therefore if any litigant has made any prayer for such purpose it can not be said that any false statement is made or any misguiding or misleading statement is made. Any litigant or citizen can invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of this court against any statutory authority or judicial or quasi judicial authority subject to limits of territorial jurisdiction.
5. Mr. Jaiswal has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Suo Motu Proceedings against Mr. R. Karuppan, Advocate reported in 2001(4) Sup. Today 108 for contending that a false statement made itself is an offence punishable under IPC and therefore this court should direct the Registrar to file a complaint against the petitioner. Mr. Jaiswal has also relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Rudul Sah vs State of Bihar and Anr., reported in AIR 1983 SC 1086 for contending that in the matter where the Apex Court found that there is a case for awarding compensation and such compensation has been awarded. It may be stated that the decision of the Apex Court in case of Su Motu proceedings (supra) can not be read as a mandatory for the court in all cases where the offence of purgery is committed. In case of Rudul Sah (supra) it was a case of illegal detention and therefore the challenge made was pertaining to the question of liberty and the Apex Court in exercise of constitutional powers awarded the compensation.
6. Mr. Jaiswal also relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Pankajbhai Nagjibhai Patel vs State of Gujarat and Anr. reported in 2001(1) Sup. Today 124 for contending that under section 357 of Cr.P.C. there is no limit prescribed for awarding compensation by the criminal court. In my view, when this court is dealing with the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India there may not be any applicability of provisions of Sec.357 of Cr.P.C. Mr. Jaiswal also relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Smt. Kumari vs State of Tamil Nadu reported in JT 99(2) 16 for contending that in case where the negligence is found on the part of the Govt officer the compensation though prayed was not granted by the High court but the Apex Court granted compensation with interest. Therefore, he submitted that this court can order for awarding compensation as prayed for by him. Mr. Jaiswal also submitted that the amount of Rs.1,000/which was ordered to be paid by the Press Council of India is not still paid to him and therefore it is a contempt of the order passed by the Press Council of India.
7. Having considered the above, as such, there can not be any dispute on the proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court. However, such proposition of law can be applied if the same is applicable to the facts of the present case. In view of the reasons recorded earlier, I find that primafacie it does not appear that any false statement has been made by the petitioner in the petition. Further, in the petition, on 8.7.97 only Rule has been issued and no interim order has been passed by this court nor on the basis of statement made in the petition any order adverse to any of the respondents has been passed by this court. It is well settled that passing of order for admission is a matter between the petitioner and the court and unless the question arises for interim order which may be affecting the rights of any party who is contesting the petition, normally, the court may not hear the respondent concerned at the time when the petition is to be admitted. In the present case, the admission order came to be passed by the court exparte when the matter came up for the first time and therefore it can not be said that by getting the order of admission any undue benefit is obtained or has been conferred upon the original petitioner.
8. Mr. Jaiswal, party in person who is respondent No. 1 herein submitted that since the rule was issued he could not get the relief in the other court including before the Apex Court. Therefore, he submitted that the said order of rule has prejudiced his right and therefore also the petitioner should not be permitted to withdraw the petition. When the matter is considered on those aspects, it appears that the respondent No. 1 carried the matter before the Apex court by preferring the Writ petition No. 713/93 for compensation. The Apex court , as per order dated 15.10.93 passed the following order:
"The petitioner may resort to his ordinary civil remedies as also for criminal action. The WP is dismissed."
In any event, when the Apex Court considered the matter, the present petition was not even filed before this court and therefore it can hardly be said that any undue benefit is procured by the petitioner nor can it be said that such order of Rule which has been passed on 8.7.97 has prejudiced the rights of the petitioner. So far as the proceedings subsequent thereto of filing complaints in the criminal court and quashing of the same by this court under its power as per section 482 Cr.P.C. are concerned I find that when this court has quashed the complaint of the petitioner it would not be proper for me to express any view on the said aspect as this court examined the validity of the complaints filed by the respondent No. 1 and quashed the same. It is not case of the respondent No. 1 that no civil proceedings are filed for recovery of amount of compensation. Under the circumstances, I find that no rights of the respondent No. 1 or any other respondent are prejudiced by the order passed by this court admitting the petition on 8.7.97.
9. Further, even if such statement is made and the party is desirous to pursue the proceedings it is within the discretion of the court to consider the matter for order for prosecution. Unless a strong case is made or unless it is demonstrated that the party who made false statement has taken any undue benefit on account of such false statement, normally, the court may not take serious view for passing order for prosecution. In the present case, as observed earlier, it is primafacie found by the court that neither any false statement is made nor misleading statement is made nor any undue benefit is procured by the petitioner on account of socalled statement made which is as per respondent No. 1 is false and misleading.
10. Mr. Jaiswal also made an attempt to submit that since some statements in the newspaper which are adjudicated by the Press Council of India as incorrect, the petitioner should not allowed to withdraw the petition. The reference made in the decision of the Press Council of India to any statements which are dealt with by the petitioner to support his case can at the most be treated as submissions. In any event, when the petitioner himself is not desirous to pursue the petition and is desirous to withdraw the petition, it is not necessary for this court to examine the said aspect.
11. Therefore, I find that considering the facts and circumstances of the case when the petitioner is desirous to withdraw the petition and is not pressing the petition there is no extraordinary circumstances for not to grant such permission far withdrawal. The aforesaid coupled with the aspect that this court has not found that any statement made in the petition is false or any undue benefit is procured by the petitioner in this petition, hence, permission for withdrawal can be granted to the petitioner. The contention of not to permit withdrawal without payment of compensation of not less than two crores rupees is concerned, in my view, the same is ill founded in as much as unless it is demonstrated that any false statement is made and such false statement has prejudiced the rights of the party, normally the court would not entertain the prayer for awarding the compensation even if this court has such power to do so.
12. In view of the above, petitioner is permitted to withdraw the petition. Petition is disposed of as withdrawn. Rule is discharged. Considering the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. So far as payment of amount which is not paid as per respondent No. 1 by the petitioner to him pursuant to the order passed by the Press Council of India is concerned the respondent No. 1 may initiate appropriate proceedings as may be permissible in law and in normal circumstances in the petition preferred by the petitioner such relief can not be granted, more particularly, when the petition is withdrawn and the proceedings are terminated.
13. In view of the order passed in SCA No. 895/96, no order on Misc. Civil Application No. 133/05 is required. Hence, Misc. C.A. No. 133/05 stands disposed of accordingly.