Tripura High Court
Shri Suman Nag vs The State Of Tripura on 27 May, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C)No.709 of 2021
Shri Suman Nag,
son of Sri Madhusudhan Nag,
Owner, Editor, Publisher and Printer of Kalamer Shakti,
resident of Sukanta Nagar, P.O. S.B.C. Nagar,
P.S. & Sub-Division-Belonia, District-South Tripura
............ Petitioner(s)
-Versus-
1. The State of Tripura,
represented by the Secretary,
Revenue Department, Government of Tripura,
New Capital Complex, P.O. Kunjaban,
P.S. New Capital Complex,
Agartala, District-West Tripura
2. The District Magistrate,
South Tripura District, Belonia
3. The Union of India,
represented by the Secretary,
Ministry of Information and Broadcasting,
Room No.655, A wing, Shastri Bhawan,
New Delhi-110001
4. Registrar of Newspapers for India,
represented by the Press Registrar & Head of the Department,
Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, West Block VIII,
Wing-2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi-110066
............ Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. Lodh, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Biswanath Majumder, CGC
Mr. D. Bhattacharya, G.A.
Mr. P. Saha, Adv.
Date of Hearing : 02.03.2022
Date of Judgment & Order : 27.05.2022
Whether fit for reporting : NO
Page 2 of 14
HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
JUDGMENT & ORDER
By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order No.F.6(298)/DM/S/JDL/PRB Act/P-I/2021/280 dated 18.09.2021 issued by the District Magistrate, South Tripura Belonia [Annexure-9 to the writ petition]. In addition thereto, the petitioner has urged for a writ of prohibition against the respondents restraining them from acting in furtherance of the said order dated 18.09.2021.
2. The petitioner started publishing a vernacular newspaper namely Kalamer Shakti (Bengali daily) since 23.11.2017. The petitioner decided to change the language of the newspaper and accordingly, the declaration under Section 5(2D) of Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, PRB Act, in short was made. The said declaration was authenticated on 17.06.2021 by the respondent No.2 [the District Magistrate, South Tripura] under Section 6 of the PRB Act. After three months of filing the said declaration, the respondent No.2 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner [Annexure-3 to the writ petition]. By the said show cause notice, the petitioner has been asked to explain how the said newspaper commenced its publication as an English daily without any certificate of registration as required under Section 19(C) of the said Act. For publication of the English daily how the petitioner has used the same RNI number being TRIBEN10404 which was earlier used for the Bengali daily under the same title which has however ceased its publication. It has been also revealed in the said notice that the discrepancy letter was issued to the petitioner by the section officer/Registration Supervisor, for the Page 3 of 14 Registrar of Newspaper in India by the letter No.23.10.2017-R3 dated 25.10.2017, the reply of which has not been received from the petitioner. Finally, the petitioner was asked to give his reply within three days from the date of the receipt of the reply to the respondent No.2 why the appropriate action would not be taken against him.
3. The petitioner filed his reply [Annexure-4 to the writ petition] but there is no date in the copy that has been enclosed with the writ petition. In the reply, the petitioner has stated as follows :
"I would like to inform you that, after receiving the letter vide file no.23.10.2017-R3 dated 25.10.17 which was issued by RNI (Annexure-A);
I went to DM West for due authentication of Declaration (FORM-1) which was required by RNI because publisher and printing press were from different district. The DM West denied to do so. I rushed to the Hon‟ble High Court of Tripura. On writ petition, the High Court instructed DM West to immediately authenticate FORM 1 so that I could start printing at West Tripura. FORM 1 authenticated by the then DM West on 17th November 2017, is attached as (Annexure B) and document related to High court‟s judgment attached as (Annexure C).
Finally as required by the RNI, New Delhi I sent them the latest edition of newspaper and declaration (FORM 1) duly authenticated by DM West and South Tripura DM on 23 rd November 2017. The receive copy of the reply to this letter of RNI is attached herewith as (Annexure D). In the reply to the letter we cleared all requirements of RNI and was able to submit FORM 1 authenticated by DM West, finally requesting RNI to issue Kalamer Shakti a revised registration certificate."
A copy of the declaration dated 17.11.2017 which was enclosed to the reply is available also with the writ petition.
4. After the reply was furnished the date of hearing was fixed by the respondent No.2 on several occasion at the instance of the petitioner. Finally, the Page 4 of 14 impugned order dated 18.09.2021 has been passed by the respondent No.2. Since the said order is the pivot of the controversy, the full text is reproduced hereunder:
"No.F.6(298)/DM/S/JDL/PRB Act/P-I/2021/280 GOVERNMENT OF TRIPURA OFFICE OF THE DISTRTICT MAGISTRATE & COLLECTOR SOUTH TRIPURA, BELONIA Dated, Belonia, the 18th September, 2021 PROCEEDING Whereas a Show Cause Notice was issued to Sri Suman Nag, S/O- Sri Madhusudhan Nag, Vill-Sukanta Nagar, P.O.-SBC Nagar, under Belonia P.S. Belonia, South Tripura vide No.F.6(298)/DM/S/JDL/2016/265 dated, 1/9/2021 in connection with printing & publication of the English newspaper „Kalamer Shakti‟ and a reply is received from Sri Nag on 04/09/2021 and on scrutiny of the reply it is found that Sri Nag has sought 30 days time for submitting the latest revised Registration Certificate, which was not found to be satisfactory.
AND Whereas, under section 5(2D) of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867; in case the language of the newspaper is changed, then the declaration shall cease to have effect a new declaration shall be necessary before the publication of the newspaper can be continued and subsequently under section 19C of the said Act, on receiving from the Magistrate u/s 6 a copy of the declaration in respect of a Newspaper and on the publication of such Newspaper, the Press Registrar shall as soon as practicable thereafter, issue a certificate of registration in respect of that Newspaper to the Publisher thereof. That certificate of Registration in favour of "Kalamer Shakti" in English edition is yet to be received by the undersigned but the newspaper „Kalamer Shakti‟ is being printed & published in English without Certificate of Registration.
AND The title code "TRIBEN10404" which is appearing in the English edition of "Kalamer Shakti" Newspaper and previously the same title code used to appeared in the Bengali edition of "Kalamer Shakti". But the title code TRIBEN10404 was issued by the RNI for "Kalamer Shakti" in Bengali version which is found from the RNI title verification letter, vide file No.1317942, dated, 29-08-2017. But u/s 5(2D) of the said Act since the language of the Newspaper is changed from Bengali to English, a new declaration shall be necessary which the publisher Sri Suman Nag made on 1 st June 2021 in Form-I. Subsequently, the declaration was sent to the RNI by post as Registration on 29-06-2021, but till date no title verification letter for the English edition of "Kalamer Shakti" by RNI is received to this end. Yet Sri Suman Nag is using the old title code (TRIBEN10404) of the Bengali edition of "Kalamer Shakti"
Newspaper for the new English edition of "Kalamer Shakti" which is in contravention of the Act u/s 5(2D).
AND An enquiry team had been formed u/s 8(B) of the said Act and subsequently the team has submitted the report vide No.F.37(1)/ADM(PP)/S/Misc/Vol- II/2020/221, dated, 9th September, 2021, wherein the enquiry team has clearly recommended for cancellation of the declaration in Form-I made by Sri Suman Nag, dated, 17-06-2021.
AND Page 5 of 14 Sri Suman Nag had been asked to appear before the undersigned on 15/09/2021 at 11 AM for hearing u/s 8(B) of the said Act, vide this Office letter No.F.6(298)/DM/S/JDL/PRB ACT/P-I/2021/269, dated, 13th September, 2021 which is duly served to him and he did not appear. Instead he submitted a letter asking for more time to appear. Based on his request letter, he was asked to appear on 18-09- 2021 at 11 AM before the undersigned vide letter No.F.6(298)/DM/S/JDL/PRB ACT/P-I/2021/275, dated, 15th September 2021, which was duly served to him. But neither he turned up nor he represented himself by any of his representative, which indicates that he wants to avoid the hearing. Instead he submitted a reply for rescheduling the hearing date within 10 days along with a xerox copy of old prescription dated 02-04-2021, which is found not justified and not satisfactory.
Now, therefore, u/s 8(B) of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, the declaration in Form-I submitted by Sri Suman Nag in favour of "Kalamer Shakti" in English language which was authenticated on 17-06-2021 is hereby cancelled. To Suman Nag, S/O-Sri Madhusudhan Nag, Of Sukanta Nagar, P.O.-SBC Nagar, P.S. Belonia, South Tripura, For information and necessary action.
Illegible (Saju Vaheed A. IAS) District Magistrate & Collector, South Tripura, Belonia"
5. Immediately, after receipt of the said order dated 18.09.2021, the petitioner submitted an application to the respondent No.2 on 20.09.2021 urging reconsideration as according to him, he started printing the newspaper in English newspaper only after the authentication was done on 17.06.2021. The said declaration was also sent to the Press Registrar by the respondent No.2 along with his communication dated 24.06.2021. It is to be pointed out that by the said declaration, three changes which are as follows were sought to be made :
1) Change of the Printing Press
2) Change of Newspapers price and
3) Change of the language of the Newspaper-from Bengali to English.
6. Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has stated that for changing the language of the newspaper or the name of the printer etc., the publisher shall furnish a declaration under Section 5(2D) of the PRB Act and that should be authenticated by the District Magistrate and after such authentication, Page 6 of 14 the newspaper may commenced its publication. In terms of the declaration under Section 5(2D) of the PRB Act, the respondent No.4, the Registrar of Newspapers for India will follow the provisions of Section 19(C) of the said Act. Ignoring those provisions of law, the respondent No.2 has passed the impugned order invoking the jurisdiction as provided under Section 8(B) of the PRB Act. From a bare reading of Section 5(2D) of the said Act, it would be apparent that the petitioner had followed all the required procedure, despite that, the said order dated 18.09.2021 has been passed most illegally. Hence, interference of this court has been sought in order to protect the Constitutional right of expression of the petitioner.
7. The respondents No.1 and 2 filed the reply whereas the respondents No.3 and 4 filed a separate reply. The respondents No.1 and 2 represented by Mr. D. Bhattacharya, learned G.A. has in their reply stated that the petitioner commenced the publication of the newspaper titled as Kalamer Shakti in English language without the Certificate of Registration from the Press Registrar under Section 19(C) of the PRB Act. According to Mr. Bhattacharya, learned G.A., the Press Registrar is supposed to issue a Certificate of Registration under Section 19(C) of the PRB Act on receiving the declaration authenticated by the authorised Magistrate. But such certificate has not been issued as yet. Defying the provisions of law, the petitioner commenced the publication. It has been stated in their reply that under Section 5(2D) of the Act where the language of the newspaper is changed, the declaration shall ceased to have effect and a new declaration is necessary to be made before the publication of the newspaper commences. But without fresh Certificate of Registration from the Press Registrar, the petitioner Page 7 of 14 commenced publication of newspaper in English using the title code of the newspaper which was granted for publishing the newspaper in Bengali. Thus, the petitioner violated the provisions of Section 5(2D) and Section 19(C) of the Act.
8. That apart, it has been contended that the petitioner was given enough opportunity of hearing, but he did not avail those opportunities to place the materials in support of his contentions. No one can be allowed to take the proceeding at ransom.
9. In para 12 of the reply filed by the respondents No.1 and 2, it has been specifically stated by those respondents that the respondent No.2 forwarded the declaration of the petitioner in Form-I to the Press Registrar by the communication dated 24.06.2021. Even after lapse of two months, no certificate of registration has been received. It has been also stated that an inquiry team was constituted vide order dated 07.09.2021. The inquiry team has submitted a report by the communication dated 09.09.2021. The inquiry team has opined that the declaration in Form-I submitted by the petitioner on 17.06.2021 and authenticated by the respondent No.2 may be cancelled as per provisions of Section 8(B) read with Section 14 of the PRB Act, if the authority is satisfied.
10. There had been no infraction of the procedure in passing the impugned order dated 18.09.2021 and hence, the challenge against the order dated 18.09.2021 is bound to fail. Moreover, maintainability of the writ petition has been challenged in view of the provisions made for preferring appeal to the Press Page 8 of 14 and Registration Appellate Board. It has been urged that the writ petition has been dismissed at the threshold.
11. The respondents No.3 and 4 represented by Mr. Biswanath Majumder, learned CGC have also filed a separate reply. Those respondents have at the outset stated that the Registrar of Newspaper for India is a statutory authority under Section 19 of the PRB Act, 1867 for purpose of verifying and registering a title of newspaper on the recommendation of the District Magistrate within whose local jurisdiction such newspaper shall be printed or published. According to them, no fundamental or statutory right of the petitioner has been infringed and hence, the writ petition is not maintainable. In para 6.B it has been stated that as per record the title Kalamer Shakti was verified by the answering respondent on 29.08.2017 as Bengali daily under the title code "TRIBEN10404" in favour of the petitioner. It is further submitted that as per record, application for registration was received by RNI on 26.09.2017. However, on scrutiny of the documents, certain discrepancies in the records were noticed and the same was intimated to the publisher vide RNI letter dated 25.10.2017 and the complete documents are yet to be received in RNI as on date [Annexure-R/1 to the reply filed by the respondent No.3 and 4].
12. It has also been admitted by them that the District Magistrate, South Tripura, Belonia had forwarded the declaration dated 17.06.2021. But in that declaration, the seal and signature of the authenticating authority was missing. According to them, it was the reason that no action could be taken. No dispute has Page 9 of 14 been raised by the respondent No.3 and 4 as they had received the letter dated 24.06.2021 of the District Magistrate, South Tripura, Belonia.
13. In para 12, the respondents No.3 and 4 have categorically asserted as under :
"While copy of declaration dated 17.06.2021 is attested by District Magistrate, South Tripura, Belonia, portion of declaration containing the seal and signature of authenticating authority is missing. Further, it is pertinent to mention here that change of language of a verified/registered title at the time of filing declaration is not permissible. The owner/publisher is required to apply afresh for verification of title in the desired language(s) through the District Magistrate concerned, which shall be verified by RNI based on availability, as per the PRB Act, 1867 and the title verification guidelines. The same was communicated by RNI to Shri Saju Vaheed A., IAS, District Magistrate & Collector, South Triprua, Belonia vide letter dated 02.12.2021 (Annexure-R-4). A copy of RNI letter dated 02.12.2021 was also endorsed to the Publisher of Kalamer Shakti."
[Emphasis added]
14. They have further asserted that a change of language of a verified/registered title cannot be brought about by filing declaration of the nature as filed by the petitioner. The owner/publisher is required to apply afresh for verification of title in the desired language(s) through the District Magistrate concerned. The title shall be verified based on availability, as per the PRB Act, 1867 and the title in accordance with the verification guidelines, be verified and be allotted on availability. The said procedure was communicated to the respondent No.2 by the letter dated 02.12.2021 [Annexure-R/4 to the reply filed by the respondents No.3 and 4]. A copy of the RNI letter dated 02.12.2021 was endorsed to the Publisher of Kalamer Shakti, the petitioner herein. The text of the said Page 10 of 14 communication dated 02.12.2021 [Annexure-R/4 to the reply filed by the respondents No.3 and 4] having considered pertinent is fully extracted hereunder :
No.23/10/2017-R3(Part) GOVERNMENT OF TRIPRUA OFFICE OF REGISTRAR OF NEWSPAPERS FOR INDIA (Ministry of Information & Broadcasting) 9th Floor, Soochna Bhawan, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003 2nd December, 2021 To Shri Saju Vaheed A., IAS District Magistrate & Collector, South Tripura, Belonia, Tripura Subject : Registration of „Kalamer Shakti‟, Bengali Daily published from Agartala.
Sir, This is in reference to your letter No.F.6(398)/DM/S/JDL/2016/213 dated 24.06.2021 on the above subject.
2. In this connection, it informed that the title „Kalamer Shakti‟, was verified by RNI on 29.08.2017 as Bengali Daily under Title Code "TRIBEN10404" in favour of Shri Suman Nag from South Tripura District, Tripura.
3. The publisher applied for registration of „Kalamer Shakti‟ vide letter dated 26.09.2017. However, on scrutiny of the documents, certain discrepancies were noticed and the same was intimated to the Publisher vide RNI letter dated 25.10.2017 (copy enclosed). Complete documents are yet to be received.
4. Now we have received a declaration sent under your seal and signature for change of language of the Daily to English vide the said letter dated 24.06.2021. It is informed that change of language of a verified/registered title at the time of filing declaration is not permissible. The owner can apply afresh for verification of title in the desire language(s) through the District Magistrate concerned, which shall be verified based on availability, as per the PRB Act, 1867 and the title verification guidelines.
Yours faithfully, Illegible (Ashutosh Mohle) Assistant Press Registrar
15. On appreciation of the averments and the records as produced by the petitioner and the respondents, two pertinent questions fall for consideration of this court. Those are -
Page 11 of 14
(1) Whether the writ petition is maintainable in view of Section 8C of the PRB Act which provides that any person aggrieved by an order by a Magistrate to refuse to authenticate a declaration under section 6 or cancelling a declaration under section 8B may, within sixty days from the date on which such order is communicated to him, prefer an appeal to the Appellate Board to be called the Press and Registration Appellate Board [consisting of a Chairman and another member to be nominated by the Press Council of India, established under section 4 of the Press Council Act, 1978 (37 of 1978), from among its members, provided that the Appellate Board may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal in time ?
(2) Whether for change of language of a newspaper whose titled is already verified and registered it requires to be registered afresh with the Press Registrar on furnishing copy of the declaration under Section 6 of the said Act ?
16. The petitioner's contention is that no fresh registration is required. Only a declaration under Section 5(2D) of the PRB Act would suffice, as on the basis of the said declaration, the Press Registrar shall issue a fresh certificate by changing the language of the newspaper. Section 5(2D) of the Act provides that when the title of any newspaper or its language or the periodicity of its publication is changed, the existing declaration ceases to have any effect. A new declaration becomes necessary before the publication of the newspaper. The other changes are not very material for our purpose.
17. The respondents have in unison contended that the word declaration as appearing in Section 5(2D) shall mean the declaration as referred in Section 19C of the PRB Act. In the event, unless the certificate of registration under Section 19C of the PRB Act is issued, no newspaper shall commence its publication. The certificate of Registration is preceded by verification of the declaration and approval of the title of the newspaper depends on availability of the title. Page 12 of 14
18. In the considered view of this court, a conjoint reading of Section 5(2D) and Section 19C of the PRB Act would lead to an inference that for change of language, a fresh verification is to be carried out by the Registrar of Newspapers for India or the Press Registrar. On availability of the said title in English, the Press Registrar shall issue the fresh Certificate of Registration. But the petitioner did not follow the said procedure and as such, the contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted by this court.
19. So far the maintainability of the writ petition is concerned, this court is of the view that by Section 8C of the PRB Act, the jurisdiction under Article 226 is not made absolutely barred. In this writ petition, the petitioner has contended that a declaration under Section 5(2D) is sufficient for change of language. Therefore, the issue precisely in the case in hand is whether such declaration would suffice the purpose or not. This is a question of interpretation and hence, this writ petition is maintainable and is not hit by the provisions of Section 8C of the PRB Act. Section 19C of the PRB Act provides that on receiving from the Magistrate the declaration under Section 6 of the PRB Act in respect of a newspaper and on the publication of such newspaper, the Press Registrar shall, as soon as practicable, thereafter issue that certificate of registration in respect of that newspaper to the publisher thereof.
20. By the communication dated 02.12.2021, the petitioner was apprised by the Office of the Registrar of Newspapers for India that the change in the language of a verified/registered title by filing a mere declaration is not Page 13 of 14 permissible. The owner or the publisher can apply for verification of title in the desired language through the District Magistrate concerned. That shall be verified based on availability of title as per the PRB Act, 1867 and the title verification guidelines.
21. It appears that the petitioner did not take any step as suggested by the said letter dated 02.12.2021. Even no rejoinder has been filed against the reply filed by the respondents No.3 and 4.
22. Having appreciated the submission of the counsel appearing for the parties and the records so produced with the writ petition and the replies, this court is of the view that the petitioner has misconstrued the provisions of Section 5(2D) of the PRB Act inasmuch as Section 5 of the PRB Act prescribes the rules for publication of newspapers. Section 5(2A) provides specifically that every declaration under Rule 2 shall specify the title of the newspaper, the language in which is to be published and periodicity of its publication and such other particulars as may be prescribed. It has been clearly stated under Section 5(2C) that a declaration under Rule (2) and authenticated under Section 6 shall be necessary before the newspaper can be published. In the prospective of those prescriptions, Section 5(2D) has provided that where the title of any newspaper or its language or its periodicity of publication is changed, the declaration is ceased to be effective and a new declaration is necessary before the publication of the newspaper can be continued. Such declaration is required to be made conforming to the requirement of Section 6 of the PRB Act, in respect of a newspaper, as soon as practicable, and Page 14 of 14 that be submitted to the Press Registrar. The Press Registrar shall as soon as practicable issue a certificate of Registration in respect of that newspaper to the publisher thereof. But the order of cancellation has been made under Section 8B of the PRB Act, as according to the considered opinion of the District Magistrate, the newspaper was being published in contravention of the provision of the PRB Act, inasmuch as the petitioner did not get any Certificate of Registration under Section 19C of the PRB Act. This court does not find any infirmity in the order dated 18.09.2021 [Annexure-9 to the writ petition] and hence, the writ petition stands dismissed.
23. Before parting with the records it is observed that the petitioner may file the appropriate declaration conforming to the provisions of Section 6 of the PRB Act and upon authentication, the District Magistrate, South Tripura, Belonia shall forthwith forward the same to the Press Registrar, if the petitioner filed any such declaration. It is further observed that the Press Registrar shall forthwith consider the said declaration for purpose of issuing Certificate of Registration in terms of Section 19C of the PRB Act, on verification of title vis-à-vis its availability. This order will not create any embargo in the said process.
No order as to costs.
JUDGE Sabyasachi B