Bangalore District Court
Karnataka Public Service vs Sri.Vijay Shankeshwar on 11 September, 2018
IN THE COURT OF XL ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-41) AT BENGALURU.
Dated this the 11th day of September 2018.
PRESENT
SRI.RAVINDRA. M. JOSHI,
M.A., LL.B. (Spl.)
XL Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
O.S.NO.2504/2007
PLAINTIFF : KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION,
Udyoga Soudha,
Bengaluru-560 001,
By its Secretary,
K.Anil Kumar,
S/o. K.V.G.Lakshman Rao,
Aged about 57 years.
(By Sri.C.S.Prasanna Kumar, Adv.)
AND:
DEFENDANTS: 1. SRI.VIJAY SHANKESHWAR,
Printer and Publisher,
Vijaya Karnataka Daily Newspaper,
Vijayananda Printers Ltd.,
Publisher at No.4, KCCF Compound,'
Pampa Maha Kavi Road, Chamarajpet,
Bengaluru-560 001.
2. SRI.VISHWESHWAR BHAT,
Executive Managing Editor,
Vijaya Karnataka Daily Newspaper,
No.4, KCCF Compound,'
2 OS.2504/2007
Pampa Maha Kavi Road, Chamarajpet,
Bengaluru-560 001.
3. SRI.LOKESH KAYARGA,
Reporter,
Vijaya Karnataka Daily Newspaper,
Publisher at No.4, KCCF Compound,'
Pampa Maha Kavi Road, Chamarajpet,
Bengaluru-560 001.
(By Sri.Vishwanath. R. Hegde, Adv.)
*****
i) Date of Institution of the 26.03.2007
suit.
ii) Nature of the suit. Declaration & Mandatory
Injunction.
iii) Date of the
commencement of 10.02.2009
recording of evidence.
iv) Date on which the
judgment was pronounced. 11.09.2018
v) Total Duration Year/s Month/s Days
11 05 15
*****
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendants for declaring that the articles published on 09.12.2006, 10.12.2006, 11.12.2006, 12.12.2006 and 13.12.2006 in the newspaper Vijaya Karnataka are per se 3 OS.2504/2007 defamatory and devoid of truth, consequently, directing the defendants to publish an apology in their newspaper stating that the articles published and referred in Para 'a' are devoid of truth and also for Mandatory Injunction directing the defendants to publish the refutation sent by plaintiff by their Letter dated 14.12.2006 viz., document No.6 in their newspaper award damages in a sum of Rs.15,000/- to plaintiff payable by the defendants jointly and severally.
.2. The plaintiff pleaded that Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC) is created under Article 315 of the Constitution and it is an autonomous body created for the purpose of recruiting the persons for various posts and services of the Karnataka State. The KPSC consists of Chairman and members, who are appointed by the Governor of State under Article 316 of Constitution. The eligibility for members and Chairman of KPSC is that, they should be a man of eminence and one half of them should 4 OS.2504/2007 have held a high office at least 10 years either under Central Government or State Government and shall hold office for a period of 6 years or till they attain age of 62 years, whichever is earlier. The Chairman and members of the KPSC on the expiry of term of office, they are ineligible for reappointment. The plaintiff pleaded that the conduct of business and functions of commission are governed by Karnataka Public Service Commission (Conduct of Business and Additional Functions) Act, 1959 and Karnataka Public Service Commission (Functions) Rules, 1973. The recruitment carried out by KPSC were in consonance with that Act and Rules. The KPSC conduct examinations, interviews for the purpose of selecting candidates in accordance with Recruitment Rules prescribed by the State and recommends candidates, who are selected by KPSC on merit to be appointed by the State. The State considering recommendations of the Commission appoints the selected candidates to the various services of the State. The plaintiff averred that KPSC selects persons to various posts 5 OS.2504/2007 / service like Gazetted Probationers Group-A and B posts in the State Civil Services, which includes Administrative Service, Police Service, Accounts Service, Commercial Tax service, Municipal Administrative Service, Engineers for PWD and Irrigation Departments, Section Officers for Karnataka Secretariat, First Division Assistants, Second Division Assistants for all Government Departments. The KPSC carries out onerous job of making selection in a transparent manner in accordance with Recruitment Rules by engaging the services of competent people and experts in the field. The Karnataka Public Service Commission enjoys a high reputation of being an independent and efficient Constitutional Selecting Body. The plaintiff averred that defendant No.1 is printer and publisher of Kannada Daily newspaper "Vijaya Karnataka". The defendant No.2 is Executive Managing Editor and defendant No.3 is one of the Reporter of Vijaya Karnataka. The Vijaya Karnataka newspaper is a leading Kannada daily having wide circulation in the State and it enjoys wide 6 OS.2504/2007 readership in the State and the view expressed and the articles and news items published in the newspaper are taken as correct and true and people form their opinion based on the articles published in the newspaper. The plaintiff averred that defendant No.1 published series of articles on consecutive dates on 09.12.2006 to 13.12.2006 concerning the functioning of KPSC. The said articles are purport4d to have been authored by defendant No.3. The plaintiff alleged that captions / headings as well as contents of all the articles are per se defamatory. The defendants published first article on 09.12.2006 under the heading " PɦJ¸ï¹ PÀªÀÄðPÁAqÀ" with caption "CºÀðvÉVAvÀ 'ªÀåQÛvÀéPÉÌÃ' E°è ªÀÄuÉ"É . It is alleged in the article that KPSC has nil transparency in the matter of conducting examinations. It is alleged that KPSC has fixed 200 marks for Personality Test for Gazetted Probationers Recruitment contrary to and in violation of the Rules and there is a case pending before KAT on this aspect. Further it is stated that in the website of KPSC, it is mentioned that the marks 7 OS.2504/2007 prescribed for written examination are 1800 marks and for viva 90 marks. If it is taken as a standard for selecting the candidates, many people would have been selected, but the said norm has been discarded, which has resulted in selection of several ineligible candidates. It is further alleged that candidates, who have been obtained ranks in PUC, Degree and M.A., have been deprived of jobs under the heading "ºÁånæPï gÁåAPï, PÉ®¸À £Á¹Û".
It is averred that the defendants published second article on 10.12.2006 under the heading "PɦJ¸ï¹ PÀªÀÄðPÁAqÀ ¨sÁUÀ- 2" with caption " PÉJJ¸ï C¨ÀsåyðUÀ¼À DAiÉÄÌAiÀÄÆ LaÒPÀ". It is stated in the article that in the examination four candidates belongs to the same family have obtained ranks, which clearly demonstrates the irregularities committed by the KPSC. Further it is stated that candidates, who have been obtained less marks in the written examination were given more marks in viva over the candidates, who have secured more marks in the 8 OS.2504/2007 written examination, which shows that the Commission has selected the candidates in whimsical manner. The plaintiff further pleaded that on 11.12.2006, defendants published their articles under the heading " PɦJ¸ï¹ PÀªÀÄðPÁAqÀ ¨sÁUÀ
- 3 of the caption "ªÀÄ£À¸ÉÆà EZÉÒ «ÄøÀ®Ä, PɦJ¸ï¹ zÁR¯É". In the said article it is alleged that KPSC contrary to the decisions of High Court and Supreme Court have formulated their own rules and thereby created precedent. It has deprived the merited candidates being selected to the posts and has selected candidates, who are not merited and has given examples that one H.B.Yogananda, B.S.Madhukeshwara, T.S.Hanumanthegowda, Nagahanumaiah, were deprived of their being selected, though they are higher in the rank in the merit list. KPSC has created enough confusion regarding reservation policy and thereby KPSC has violated the norms and has selected the candidates in a fanciful and whimsical manner. 9 OS.2504/2007
The plaintiff further pleaded that on 12.12.2006, defendants published the article under heading " PɦJ¸ï¹ PÀªÀÄðPÁAqÀ ¨sÁUÀ - 4" with caption "C£ÀÄ¥ÁvÀ ¯ÉÆÃ¥ÀB ¥Àæw¨sÉUÉ PÀÄvÀÄ"Û and it is alleged that KPSC discarded the merit as standard for selecting candidates and ignored the regulations, which prescribes the ratio for inviting candidates for personality test. It is stated that according to the merit list 1790 candidates ought to have been notified for viva, but only 976 candidates have been invited thereby 819 candidates have been deprived of opportunity of being called for interview. More number of candidates under reservation categories have been called for personality test. Whereas, less number of candidates under General Merit category have been called for personality test. It is further stated that after reserving 85% of posts under various reservation categories only 15% of posts are left under Genera Merit category. Even then sufficient number of candidates under General Merit category have not been called for personality test. 10 OS.2504/2007 The plaintiff further averred that on 13.12.2006, the defendants published the article under the heading " PɦJ¸ï¹ PÀªÀÄðPÁAqÀ ¨sÁUÀ -5 with the caption "¸ÁA«zsÁ¤PÀ Ü ÀÆ eÁwAiÀÄ ZËPÀlÄÖ" and it is alleged that appointment ¸ÀA¸ÉU of members to the KPSC is purely on the caste basis and not in accordance with constitutional provisions and on retirement of member, the vacancy is filled by appointing a person belonging to the same cast. Further it is alleged that a particular cast members have been dominated the posts of the members and Chairman. A large number of communities remain unrepresented in the matter of selection. The Commission has not bothered to give any representation to many regions of the State. KPSC has not selected any person in Group A post from the Districts like Raichur, Koppal, Gadag, Kodagu and North Karnataka in 1998 Gazette Probationers Recruitment. Candidates from reservation categories have been interviewed and selected under General Merit category. Thereby eligible General Merit category candidates have been deprived of 11 OS.2504/2007 opportunity of being interviewed and selected under General Merit.
The plaintiff further averred that all these articles published by defendants prima facie shows that they are defamatory, false and published with malicious intention of bringing down the credibility of Institution. The KPSC functions of making selection of civil services and posts as mandated by the Constitution with highest degree of transparency and observing all norms, Rules and Regulations strictly. A common man if read the articles would certainly carry an impression that KPSC is not functioning in accordance with Rules and Regulations and also it cast doubt about reputation and integrity of Chairman and members of the Commission. Thereby, the status of Institution as an independent, impartial Constitution Selecting Body would be irreparably damaged. It is averred that after coming to know about publication of these articles, KPSC sent detailed explanation meeting of the issues raised in the articles on 12 OS.2504/2007 14.12.2006 and informed that the publication made by defendants are all false, devoid of truth and totally baseless. Further the plaintiff requested the defendants to publish the Letter sent to it. The defendants though acknowledged of receiving the Letter have did not oblige to publish it. The Letter sent by KPSC contains graphic details as to how the authority functions and it repudiates all the claims put forth by the defendants in their articles. On going through articles published by defendants, the public would form an opinion that KPSC is not transparent in its functioning, which causes irreparable loss and damage to the Institution. The defendants with an oblique motive of increasing their circulation of papers have published the articles. The defendants even did not bother to verify the truth before publishing the said articles either by interviewing Chairman, members or Secretary of the KPSC or verified the facts. The articles published by defendants being highly sensitive concerning the public at large. The articles published recklessly to spread false 13 OS.2504/2007 roomers to the public. The plaintiff averred that it has got issued a notice calling upon the defendants to publish the refutation and explanation contained in the Letter dated 14.12.2006, but the defendants did not heed to the said notice. By the act of defendants in publishing defamatory articles and non-publication of refutation and explanation sent by KPSC, it has caused immense injury to plaintiff. Therefore, plaintiff constrained to file the present suit seeking reliefs.
.3. In pursuance of summons, defendants put appearance. The defendant No.3 submitted written statement and defendants No.1 and 2 adopted the same by filing memo.
The defendants contended that suit of the plaintiff is false, frivolous, vexatious, not maintainable in law or on facts and is liable to be dismissed in limine. The plaintiff filed the present suit with an intention to terrorize the defendants and to somehow shut the mouth of 14 OS.2504/2007 defendants, who do not publish any of the misdeeds of plaintiff. The present suit is filed with illegal and malafide intention of covering the lapses on the part of KPSC. The defendants averred that defendant No.3 is Reporter of Vijaya Karnataka, which is most reputed daily newspaper with a wide circulation. The articles published in the aforesaid newspaper were published by defendants by keeping in mind the ethics and responsibility of newspaper. The defendants being Fourth Estate of the democracy and as a watchdog of the system has duty and responsibility of reporting, publishing articles to educate and inform the general public. The defendants averred that the intention of the plaintiff is wholly doubtful and appears to cantankerous since on the subject matter on which the defendants published the articles in their newspaper. As many as 18 such reports were published during the same period in many other reputed newspaper like Prajavani, Indian Express, Times of India, Lankesh, Sanjevani, Hindu, Vijay Times, Udayavani. The matter covered in the articles 15 OS.2504/2007 got published between November, 2006 to January, 2007 and articles published in Vijaya Karnataka appears almost at the end of the sequences of articles published. The plaintiff even without whispering a word about any one of the above newspapers, chosen only the Vijay Karnataka out of sheer desperation and only to cover up its lapses. The defendants admitted creation of plaintiff Institution and procedure for appointing Chairman and members, the purpose of office. The defendants denied that the Government selected eminent persons of high integrity as member and Chairman of the Commission. The defendants contended that no derogatory remarks have been made in the newspaper regarding the validity of the Constitution or on any of the members or the Chairman of the Commission. The defendants denied the integrity, caliber and qualification to act as Chairman or member of KPSC and their honesty, efficiency in their official capacity. The process of selection of 1998 batch KAS Officers was marred by controversies for 8 long years in various Courts 16 OS.2504/2007 and it was finally cleared in 2006. Even selection of candidates of KAS officers during 1999, 2004 in recruitment for Horticulture Department and Lecturers for Government Colleges also challenged before the Court of law. The defendants though admitted the functions of KPSC regarding selection of persons to various posts like Gazette Probationers Group A & B, KAS, KSPS, Accounts Service. Commercial Tax Service, Municipal Administrative Service, Engineers for PWD & Irrigation, Section Officers for Karnataka Secretariat, FDA, SDA for Government Departments, but it is denied that KPSC carries out onerous job of making selection in a transparent manner in accordance with Recruitment Rules by engaging the people and competent experts in the field and KPSC enjoys a high reputation of being an independent and efficient Constitution. The defendants admits averments made out in Para-4 of the plaint to the extent of defendant No.1 is Printer and Publisher, defendant No.2 is Executive Managing Editor, defendant No.2 is one of the Reporter of 17 OS.2504/2007 Vijaya Karnataka Kannada Daily newspaper and having wide circulation. But, the defendants denied that the views expressed in the articles and news items published in the newspaper are taken as correct and true and people formed their opinion based on articles published in the newspaper. It is contended that general public only after satisfying themselves about the bonafides and correctness of the articles published in the newspaper, believe the same to be true and thereafter, form their opinion. The defendants admit published articles in Vijay Karnataka newspaper from 09.12.2006 to 13.12.2006 in respect of the KPSC. The defendants denied the averments made out in Para 6 to 9 of the plaint partly. The defendants admit that publishing article on 09.12.2006, however, denied the assertion made by plaintiff in the said Paras. The defendants contended that the contents of said articles covered a wider area of information than what has been extracted by the plaintiff. The defendants further admit of publishing articles on 10.12.2006 to 13.12.2006 and 18 OS.2504/2007 denied the assertions made by plaintiffs in these Paras and contended that the articles covered wider area of information than what has been extracted by plaintiff. The defendants denied the averments made out in Para-10 of the plaint as false. It is denied that the articles published are prima facie defamatory and containing falsehood and articles are published with malicious intention of bringing out the credibility of Institution. The defendants denied that the KPSC carries out functions of making selection of civil service and posts of highest degree of transparency and observing all norms, rules and regulations. The defendants averred that the articles published by the defendants if read by common people, they would certainly carry an impression that KPSC is not functioning in accordance with rules and regulations and would entertain doubt abut reputation and integrity of Chairman, members and the articles cast slur and aspersions on their character and integrity. The defendants contended that the articles are based on 19 OS.2504/2007 sufficient documentary evidence and the contents of the articles are true and correct. The articles are prepared on the basis of information collected by other newspapers and information furnished by aggrieved candidates. It is averred that the public are having a fundamental right of information in respect of the Constitutional Selecting Body. It is averred that even the contents of articles published are rightful sportive criticism would damage the status of the Institution as an independent, impartial Constitutional Selecting Body. The same would be for the well being of the Society at large. It cannot be a basis to claim damages against the defendants as the same is defamatory one. The defendants denied the averments made out in Para-12 of the plaint as false. It is denied that defendant No.1 has received Letter dated 14.12.2006 sent by KPSC. However, the defendants contended that Letter has been addressed to defendant No.1 by plaintiff. The defendants contended that even the defendants acknowledged receiving the Letter sent by plaintiff and 20 OS.2504/2007 they did not oblige to publish the Letter of KPSC is not correct as the said reply was not based on correct and documentary evidence. The defendants denied the averments made out in Para 13 and 14 of the plaint. The defendants contended that the articles published by defendants is based on evidence and correct information. The article published by defendants is not defamatory one, but it is informative one. Therefore, plaintiff is not entitled for any of the relief sought and prayed for dismissing the suit with exemplary costs.
.4. On the basis of pleadings, the following issues are framed:
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the articles published on 09.12.2006, 10.12.2006, 11.12.2006, 12.12.2006 and 13.12.2006 in Vijaya Karnataka daily newspaper are per se defamatory?
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief of Mandatory Injunction against defendants to direct them to publish an apology in the said newspaper as prayed? 21 OS.2504/2007
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled for Mandatory Injunction against defendants to publish the refutation sent by the plaintiff by their Letter dated 14.12.2006 in their newspaper?
4. Whether plaintiff is entitled to claim damages of Rs.15,000/- from the defendants?
5. Whether suit is properly valued and Court fee paid is sufficient?
6. What Order or Decree?
.5. To prove and substantiate respective contentions, Assistant Secretary, Karnataka Public Service Commission examined as PW.1 and got marked 7 documents at Exs.P.1 to 7. The defendant No.3 though filed affidavit in lieu of chief-examination and examined as DW.1 and got marked documents at Ex.D.1 to 3, but he did not turn up for cross- examination, as such, evidence of DW.1 taken as "No evidence".
.6. Heard the arguments.
22 OS.2504/2007.7. The above issues are answered for the reasons, findings given in the foregoing discussions as:
REASONS .8. ISSUES No.1 TO 3: These issues are interconnected and depending on each other, therefore, they are taken up jointly for discussion and consideration. .9. The plaintiff filed the present suit seeking declaration as to articles published from 09.12.2006 to 13.12.2006 pertains to plaintiff Institution in the newspaper of defendants per se defamatory and directing the defendants to apology for publishing for publishing articles as they are devoid of truth. Further seeking direction to publish refutation sent by plaintiff by Letter dated 14.12.2006 in their newspaper and award to damages. It is contended by the plaintiff that Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC) is created under Article 315 of the Constitution of India and it is an autonomous 23 OS.2504/2007 body created for the purpose of recruiting persons for various posts and service of State Government. The KPSC consists of Chairman and members appointed by the Governor under Article 316 of the Constitution. It is further contended that the eligibility for selecting the members and Chairman of the KPSC is they should be a man of eminence and one half of them should have held a high office at least 10 years either under Government of India or State Government and they shall hold office for a period of 6 years or till they attain age of 62 years, whichever is earlier and after expiry of term of office, they are ineligible for reappointment. The plaintiff further contended that during 2006, the Chairman and members of KPSC appointed are having good educational qualification and served in the Government at high posts.
The Commission was managed by persons with integrity, caliber qualification, the conduct of business and functions of KPSC are governed by Karnataka Public Service Commission (Conduct of Business and Additional 24 OS.2504/2007 Functions) Act, 1959 and Karnataka Public Service Commission (Functions) Rules, 1973. The plaintiff further contended that KPSC conducts examinations, interviews for the purpose of selecting candidates in accordance with Recruitment Rules prescribed by States and recommends candidates, who are selected on merit to be appointed by the State Government. The State Government on considering the recommendation, appoint the selected candidates to various posts of Government Departments. The KPSC selects persons to various posts like Gazette Probationers Group A & B, Civil Services, which includes Administrative Service, Police Service, Accounts Service, Commercial Tax Service, Municipal Administrative Service, Engineers for PWD & Irrigation Department Service, Section Officers of the State Secretariat, FDA, SDA for all the Government Departments. The Commission carries out onerous job of making selection in transparent manner in accordance with Recruitment Rules by engaging service of competent people and experts in the field. The 25 OS.2504/2007 Commission enjoys high reputation of being an independent and efficient Constitutional Selecting Body. The plaintiff contended that defendant No.1 being Printer and Publisher, defendant No.2 being Executive Managing Editor and defendant No.3 being one of the Reporter of Vijaya Karnataka newspaper, which is one of the leading Kannada Daily newspaper having wide circulation in the State published series of articles from 09.12.2006 to 13.12.2006 in respect of the functions carried out by the plaintiff in the heading " PɦJ¸ï¹ PÀªÀÄðPÁAqÀ" with captions. In the articles, defendants without verifying the correctness of the information regarding the functioning of KPSC published it. The articles published by defendants are per se defamatory and devoid of merit. The plaintiff is discharging its duty of selecting the candidates for various posts of the Departments as per provisions of KPSC (Conduct of Business and Additional Functions) Act, 1959 and KPSC (Functions) Rules, 1973. The Vijaya Karnataka newspaper being widely circulating newspaper in the State 26 OS.2504/2007 and large number of public used to read the newspaper. The articles published without any scrutiny and verification regarding function of KPSC. The public at large will form their opinion about the genuineness of articles, which lowered the integrity and honesty of the Institution. The defendants by publishing such baseless articles in the newspaper caused reputation of the Institution lowered. On considering the articles published by defendants, plaintiff has sent a Letter by explaining existing Rules and Regulations have selecting the candidates to various posts of Government Departments requested to publish the same with an intention to know about functioning of KPSC by public at large. The defendants though acknowledged the Letter, but fails to publish it. The articles published by defendants are malicious in nature and devoid of truth and the defendants published articles with an oblique motive to increase circulation of their paper at the cast of reputation of the plaintiff's Institution. On the other hand, the defendants contended that suit of the plaintiff itself is not 27 OS.2504/2007 maintainable in law or on facts. The allegations made out by the plaintiff are baseless. The defendants stand by the articles published in the newspaper contending that the articles are based on correct and accurate information. The defendants have no intention to cause the reputation of the plaintiff Institution lowered in the eyes of public. The defendants being a responsible organization published the articles by collecting all relevant information from all the corners of Society. The articles published by defendants is infirmity and to educate the public. The defendants have no intention to lower the dignity of the plaintiff Institution, but the manner in which the process of selecting the candidates for various posts of Government Departments is not in accordance with Rules and Regulations. The defendants also contended that is not only the newspaper of defendants, which published news pertains to KPSC, but other leading several newspapers also published the articles regarding manner in which the process of selecting the candidates by KPSC. The plaintiff with an oblique 28 OS.2504/2007 motive to cause inconvenience and hardship targeted the newspaper of defendants. The aggrieved persons have questioned the procedure and manner in which KPSC has undertaken the selection process before KAT and other Courts of law. As the articles published by defendants are not defamatory or published with malicious intention, but is if published with an intention to bring to the notice / knowledge of general public about the procedure adopted by the KPSC for selecting candidates. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for any of the relief sought against the defendants.
.10. To substantiate the contention, Assistant Secretary of plaintiff Institution examined as PW.1 and got marked several documents. The defendant No.3 though examined as DW.1 in part, but, due to his failure to keep present before the Court for the purpose of cross-examination, his evidence has been taken as "No evidence".
29 OS.2504/2007.11. PW.1 filed affidavit in lieu of chief-examination by reiterating the averments made out in the plaint. The plaintiff produced copies of newspapers containing articles in respect of the functioning of KPSC at Exs.P.2 to 6. The plaintiff also produced a Letter (Ex.P.7) sent to defendants explaining and giving circulation regarding articles and requested to publish the same in the newspaper. .12. In the cross-examination PW.1 states that apart from Vijaya Karnataka newspaper, other newspapers covered the news in respect of KPSC. PW.1 further states that the article published by defendants are having malicious intention to bring down credibility of plaintiff Institution. PW.1 states that the article published in newspaper (Ex.P.2), there is reference to the effect that application filed by some of the candidates before KAT are pending since 2006. Further he admits that this article is in reference to the Rules provided for fixing 90 marks for Personality Test, but, KPSC fixed 200 marks. PW.1 admits 30 OS.2504/2007 that defendants in Ex.P.2 have stated that the candidates have contended about fixing of the marks for Personality Test in the proceedings before KAT and the stand taken by KPSC in this regard. PW.1 states that article published as per Ex.P.3, there is reference about 4 candidates of one family are being qualified in the examination and secured ranks, which matter is pending before KAT. PW.1 admits that in connection with ranks secured by Remeshwarappa and his close relatives, KPSC formed sub-committee to enquire into the said issue. PW.1 admits that Sub- Committee submitted report on 21.06.2002 (Ex.D.1). He further admits that in the report of the Committee, it is recommended for initiating legal action against then Secretary-Monappa, Chief Examiner, Professor Shivanna. PW.1 admits that the report of Sub-Committee (Ex.D.1) has been upheld by another Committee, headed by K.K.Mishra. PW.1 admits that article (Ex.P.3) published by defendants contains the subject relating to moderation formula and the subject matter before the Sub-Committee. 31 OS.2504/2007 PW.1 also admits that in the article published (Ex.P.3), there is discussion about the benefit given to the candidates by virtue of moderation formula and also how many candidates have suffered on account of that formula. He also admits that this article contains certain facts and figures and statistics and same has been verified by the Secretary of KPSC. PW.1 further states that the article published as per Ex.P.4 is regarding reservation claimed by candidates by IIIA category have been finally selected as General Merit candidates. PW.1 admits that the article published as per Ex.P.5 contains about calling of the candidates for personal interview at the ratio of 1:5 and that procedure is not followed. PW.1 admits that in the said article, the defendants have given facts and figures in respect of selection made in the year 1999. PW.1 also admits that article published at Ex.P.6 covered about appointment of Chairman and members of KPSC and followed by the Government, where there is no representation of some of the candidates. PW.1 admits 32 OS.2504/2007 that in the article Ex.P.6(a), there is mention regarding rectification of marks assigned for Personality Test from 90 to 200 and it is shown in the website. PW.1 states that he is not aware of the proceedings before the KAT by some of the candidates and the applications filed by the candidates are allowed on the ground that the conduct of KPSC is detrimental to the interest of their interests. He further admits that against the findings of KAT, KPSC preferred the writ. PW.1 states that he do not know the procedure followed by the defendants before publishing the articles (Exs.P.2 to 6). PW.1 states that the articles published by defendants as per Exs.P.2 to 6 contains defamatory statement.
.13. On going through the materials placed on record, this Court finds that it is the contention of plaintiff that the articles marked at Ex.P.2 to 6 published by defendants are per se defamatory and without ascertaining correctness of information, the defendants with a malafide intention to 33 OS.2504/2007 lower the dignity of plaintiff Institution have published the articles. On perusal of the articles published by the defendants, it reveals that the defendants have published the articles about the manner in which KPSC has undertaken process of selecting the candidates for various posts of Government Departments. Further the articles covered the facts of the procedure adopted by KPSC for conducting the examination, evaluation, reservation interview, etc. The materials on record goes to show that procedure and process of selecting the candidates by KPSC for various posts of Departments of Government are under challenge by the candidates, who have taken part in selection process of the posts before various authorities and Courts like Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, etc. The banner in which KPSC has undertaken the exercise of selecting the candidates also discussed and taken note by the Government. The irregularities, malpractices, misdeeds committed in the selection process has been ordered for enquiry by the Sub- 34 OS.2504/2007 Committee constituted by KPSC. Further the candidates, who have deprived of opportunity of being selected though they are eligible for the posts, challenged the manner in which KPSC has undertaken the selection process before Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka by filing appeal and writ, etc. During the course of enquiry into the misdeeds and malpractices and irregularities, CID has found substance in the allegation of malpractice, procedural lapses, etc., and even charge- sheeted the persons, who are responsible for all these acts. On going through the report and findings of Sub- Committee of KPSC and the charge sheet submitted by it against the persons, who are involved in malpractices, etc., goes to show that the selection process and the manner in which the process has been undertaken is not totally fair and transparent.
.14. The articles published by the defendants though are published under the heading by "PɦJ¸ï¹ PÀªÀÄðPÁAqÀ" with 35 OS.2504/2007 captions "CºÀðvÉVAvÀ 'ªÀåQÛvÀéPÉÌÃ' E°è ªÀÄuÉÉ", " PÉJJ¸ï C¨ÀsåyðUÀ¼À DAiÉÄÌAiÀÄÆ LaÒPÀ", "ªÀÄ£À¸ÉÆà EZÉÒ «ÄøÀ®Ä, PɦJ¸ï¹ zÁR¯É", "C£ÀÄ¥ÁvÀ ¯ÉÆÃ¥ÀB ¥Àæw¨sÉUÉ PÀÄvÀÄÛ", "¸ÁA«zsÁ¤PÀ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÀÆ eÁwAiÀÄ ZËPÀlÄÖ". But, the entire articles goes to show that the defendants have made an effort to bring to the notice of concerned authorities and also public at large about the lapses, irregularities, malpractices, procedure adopted in selecting the candidates, modulation process and procedure adopted for personality test, reservation of the posts. .15. In order to hold particular article as defamatory, the plaintiff has to establish that the information published is with an intention to harm or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation of the Institution. In this case, the articles published by defendants will not disclose that the defendants have published the articles with an intention to harm or knowing 36 OS.2504/2007 or having reason to believe that such publication will harm the reputation of the Institution have published it. The challenge by the candidates about the misdeeds, lapses, malpractices, irregularities in selecting the candidates by KPSC before the Court of law itself goes to show that the defendants have published the articles by taking proper care and caution and after collecting all the proper information regarding process of selecting the candidates for various posts of the Departments of Government. The Sub-Committee of KPSC also found irregularities, procedural lapses, malpractices in selection process. The Police investigation also reveals this fact. The defendants being fourth estate of democracy are having a right to bring to the notice / knowledge of public and the concern about pro and cons of particular process, which affects the public at large. In this case, defendants have done their duty of bringing to the notice of the process undertaken by KPSC and its merits, demerits, etc. The articles are informative. The articles will not reflect anything to show 37 OS.2504/2007 that with malafide intention or oblique motive of bringing down the image and status of the Institution i.e., plaintiff in the Society.
.16. It is not the defendants alone, who have published misdeeds, irregularities, malpractices in the process adopted by KPSC for selecting the candidates to various Departments, but same has been published by other leading newspapers also. On the basis of information published in the newspaper, the concerned authorities have taken note of the information and have initiated the action against the wrong doers. No where the defendants have attempted to defame or lower the status of the Institution. The articles published by the defendants at Exs.P.2 to 6 cannto be considered as a defamatory one. Exposing of misdeeds, irregularities, etc., of the KPSC, with facts and figures by published articles, is not per se defamatory. In this case, though defendant No.3 examined as DW.1, but his evidence has been discarded, but it is on 38 OS.2504/2007 the plaintiff to establish that the articles so published by defendants is with malafide intention or the information is a defamatory and it is published with oblique motive to bring out the image of the Institution. The plaintiff fails to establish all these aspects with cogent and reliable materials. The materials on record on appreciation disclose that they are published with bonafide intention. The plaintiff fails to prove that articles are per se defamatory, as such, Issue No.1 is answered in the negative. .17. ISSUE NO.5:- The plaintiff filed the suit seeking relief of declaration as to the articles published by defendants in their newspaper from 09.12.2006 to 13.12.2006 are per se defamatory. Further plaintiff sought for direction to the defendants to publish an apology in their newspaper stating that the articles published are devoid of truth. Further the plaintiff sought for Mandatory Injunction directing the defendants to publish refutation sent by it through Letter dated 14.12.2006 and prayed for 39 OS.2504/2007 awarding damages of Rs.15,000/-. The plaintiff valued the relief of declaration under Sec.24(d) of Karnataka Court Fees & Suit Valuation Act by valuing the relief for Rs.1,000/-, the plaintiff valued the relief of directing the defendants to publish an apology and refutation in their newspaper and valued the same under Sec.24(c) and paid the Court fee. Further the plaintiff sought for damages of Rs.15,000/- and valued it under Sec.21 of Karnataka Court Fees & Suit Valuation Act. The plaintiff by valuing the reliefs and paid Court fee of Rs.525/-. The defendants in their pleadings have taken up a contention that Court fee paid by the plaintiff is not correct. The plaintiff has not properly valued the suit. The defendants though have taken up the contention regarding Court fee, but have not made any efforts to show that the valuation made by plaintiff and Court fee paid thereon is not proper and insufficient. In the absence of specific proof on the part of defendants , this Court finds that valuation made by 40 OS.2504/2007 plaintiff and Court fee paid thereon is proper and correct. Therefore, Issue No.5 is answered in the affirmative. .18. ISSUES NO.2 TO 4:- The plaintiff contended that the defendants by publishing the articles as per Exs.P.2 to 6 have sent a negative message to the public about the integrity of the Institution. The articles published by defendants are without any basis and it is published with oblique motive to bring down the image of the plaintiff Institution in the Society. Therefore, the defendants are liable to publish the apology for publishing the defamatory articles as per Exs.P.2 to 6. Further the plaintiff contended that on going through the articles published by defendants, plaintiff has sent a Letter on 14.12.2006 giving explanation to all the questions, doubts and other aspects with a request for publishing the same in the newspaper. The defendants though receiving the Letter have not published it in the newspaper, which would have given correct information to the public at large. The plaintiff also 41 OS.2504/2007 contended that the act of publishing the articles by defendants caused inconvenience and it lowered the dignity of the Chairman, members of the plaintiff Commission, the functions of the KPSC, etc. Therefore, plaintiff claimed damages of Rs.15,000/- tentatively and the defendants are liable to pay damages for their act of defaming the plaintiff Institution. The defendants have totally denied the allegations leveled by the plaintiff against them. On going through the materials on record, this Court finds that defendants have published articles from 09.12.2006 to 13.12.2006 on the subject of Constitution functions, procedure for selection of candidates, selection process, malpractices, misdeeds, misuse, etc. The material on record also goes to show the process and procedure adopted by KPSC in selecting candidates is not free from demerits. The defendants have discharged their duty of bringing the misdeeds, malpractices, etc., took place in the selection process by publishing news / information in their newspaper. The 42 OS.2504/2007 articles contain information about the KPSC and its functions. The articles are not per se defamatory one. Under such circumstances, contention of plaintiff as to the defendants have to publish apology in their newspaper for publishing the articles as per Exs.P.2 to 6, cannot be accepted. Further the plaintiff has sent a Letter in the form of explanation to the subject covered in the articles at Exs.P.2 to 6 and asked the defendants to publish the same in the newspaper. The defendants are not subordinates to the plaintiff Institution. The defendants are discharging their functions independently. Though plaintiff has sent a Letter containing explanation, the defendants are not bound to publish it or they are under legal obligation to comply the request made by plaintiff. Even if at all the plaintiff intends to explain the public about the correctness of the information published in the newspaper may publish it by some other mode of communication. The articles published by defendants is informative, educative and bringing to the knowledge of public at large and concerned 43 OS.2504/2007 authorities about the procedural lapses in selection of candidates to various Departments of the Government undertaken by the plaintiff. Therefore, the articles published by defendants cannot be considered as it lowered the status, dignity of plaintiff in the Society and it bring down the reputation of Chairman and members of the plaintiff Institution. Under such circumstances, plaintiff is not entitled for any of the damages claimed from the defendants. Therefore, for these reasons, this Court answered Issues No.2 to 4 in the negative.
.19. ISSUE NO.6:- In view of the reasons, findings given while answering the above issues, this Court comes to conclusion that the plaintiff fails to prove that the articles published by defendants affecting the Constitution functions, procedure in selecting the candidates for appointment to various Departments of the Government are defamatory. The materials on record goes to show that defendants have published the articles as per Exs.P.2 44 OS.2504/2007 to 6 with bonafide intention to bring to the notice of public and concerned authorities and also to make aware of the circumstances of the case to public. Therefore, the articles published by defendants is not a defamatory one. The plaintiff fails to prove that defendants with malafide intention of defaming and bringing down the image, reputation of plaintiff Institution have published the articles in their newspaper as per Exs.P.2 to 6. The plaintiff has failed to prove with reliable and acceptable evidence. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for any of the reliefs and hence, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER Suit is dismissed. No costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by her, the transcript print is corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 11th day of September 2018.) (RAVINDRA. M. JOSHI) XL Addl. City Civil & Sessions judge, Bengaluru.45 OS.2504/2007
ANNEXURE WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF:
PW.1 -M.S.Satyaprakash S/o. T.S.Subbarao.
DOCUMENTS PRODUCED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF:
Ex.P.1 Authorization Letter issued by the plaintiff. Ex.P.2 to Vijaya Karnataka Daily newspaper dated Ex.P.6 09.12.2006, 10.12.2006, 11.12.2006, 12.12.2006 and 13.12.2006.
Ex.P.2(a) to Relevant news items published with the Ex.P.6(a) said newspapers.
Ex.P.7 Copy of Letter of plaintiff dated 14.12.2006 addressed to defendants, which has been acknowledged by the defendants.
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS:
DW.1 -Lokesh Kayarga S/o. Veerappa Gowda. DOCUMENTS PRODUCED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS:
Ex.D.1 Endorsement dated 24.07.2012 issued by Inspector General of Police Ex.D.2 Copy of Charge Sheet obtained under RTI Act.
Ex.D.3 Copy of Investigation Report obtained under RTI Act.
(RAVINDRA. M. JOSHI) XL Addl.City Civil & Sessions judge, Bengaluru.
46 OS.2504/2007
11.09.2018
P - CSPK,
D - VRH, (Judgment pronounced in the open
For Judgmen t. Court vide separate order.)
ORDER
Suit is dismissed. No costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
XL.ACC & SJ
Bengaluru.