Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Addala Sitamahalakshmi vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 21 February, 2024
HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION No.13251 of 2011
and
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4032 of 2011
COMMON ORDER:
Writ Petition No.13251 of 2011 came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-
―.... to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of a "Writ of Mandamus
(a) To declare the G.O.Rt.No. 858 dated 09.11.2010 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and forthwith quash the same issuing consequential directions to the respondents not to initiate any further action in pursuance of the G.O.Rt. No. 858 dated 09.11.2010 against the petitioner
(b) To issue for a consequential direction to the respondents not to interfere with the legitimate business activity of the petitioner in the area of publication of books in pursuance of the impugned G.O. Rt. No. 858 dt. 9.11.2010 Or otherwise and pass such other order or orders.....‖ Criminal Petition No.4032 of 2011 came to be filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to call for the records in Crime No.49 of 2011 on the file of S.H.O., Tenali I Town Police Station, Tenali, Guntur, registered for the offence punishable under Section 63 and 64 of the Copyright Act, 1957.2
VS,J wp_13251_2011 and Crl.P_4032_2011 As the issue involved in these petitions is interlinked, I am of the view that it is appropriate to decide both the petitions by common order taking Writ Petition No.13251 of 2011 as leading petition.
The petitioner is Proprietor of M/s Deepthi Publications, which is a registered firm and carrying on its business at 22-7-38, MotupalliVari Street, Kothapet, Tenali, Guntur District with Form D1 Certificate of Registration granted vide No. GNT/04/2 1586 dated 06.10.1993 which is valid from 26.09.1993, and a licence to work as a Factory with Licence No. 14366 dated 23.07.2001 which was renewed in 2007. The firm of the petitioner is a publishing house established and operating from 1903, publishing and distributing books of Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, Botany and Zoology catering to the needs of students studying Intermediate, 11 and 12th Class of CBSE and ICSE Boards, and students pursuing their interest to appear for EAMCET, IIT-JEE and AIEEE, and other various Engineering stream entrance examinations and qualifying tests.
It is further stated that the petitioner publishes Mathematics Workbooks and guide-books with EAMCET orientation and with the model and style of the entrance 3 VS,J wp_13251_2011 and Crl.P_4032_2011 examinations with over 75 titles. The books contain exercises in a systematic manner to help the students work out the problems. completely within the time available, and at the end of every chapter, certain objective type questions are given to benefit the students preparing for the competitive examinations. The syllabi of the books are based on the syllabus announced by respondent No.2 herein, the Central Board of Secondary Education (C.B.S.E] and Indian Council of Secondary Education [I.C.S.E]. The books include the model question papers of respondent No.2 annually conducted Board of Intermediate Examinations for the benefit of the students. The petitioner had been publishing these books from 1993 legitimately and the average annual turnover in the last few years has been Rs. 3.5 to 4 crore. The books published by the petitioner are followed and respected for their content, style and substance and the petitioner has a niche of its own amongst the publishers. The petitioner engages senior professors and lecturers of the respective subjects on a contract basis, whose nature of work is to annually revise the books, and the annual edition is released into the market for sales during the month of July-August i.e., with the commencement of the academic year. 4
VS,J wp_13251_2011 and Crl.P_4032_2011 It is further stated that all of a sudden on 26.04.2011, officers of respondent Nos.2,4 and 7 inspected the premises of the petitioner without any notice and seized the printed books, printing material and sealed the factory premises calling the activity of the petitioner to be in violation of G.O.Rt.No.858 dated 09.11.2010 issued by respondent No.1 herein.
It is further stated that respondent No.1 issued G.O.Rt. No.858 dated 09.11.2010 directing respondent No.4 to stop piracy of books printed by respondent No.4 and directing the private colleges to purchase the books of the syllabus prescribed by the intermediate board for the purposes of intermediate education in the State from respondent No.4 compulsorily and no private college should print any of its own books, and permission of printing books of intermediate education is granted only to respondent No.4.
Respondent No.1 issued G.O.Rt.No.858 dated 09.11.2010 restricting the private colleges from publishing their own books, but respondent Nos.2, 4 and 7 applied the said G.O. to the petitioner, which act of respondent Nos.2, 4 and 7 is wholly misconceived and arbitrary. In the said G.O., there is a direction to respondent No.4 to initiate action against the erring private 5 VS,J wp_13251_2011 and Crl.P_4032_2011 junior colleges who are preparing pirated copies of respondent No.4 - Board of intermediate books. The G.O. does not apply to the petitioner, who is a publishing house and does not operate any private junior college.
It is further stated that the petitioner has a fundamental right - "Right to Publish". Time and again, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Right to Publish is an inherent aspect of Article 19 (1) of the Constitution of India which is Right to Free Speech and Expression. The right to propagate one's ideas is inherent in the concept of freedom of speech and expression, for the purpose of propagation of ideas, every citizen has the right to publish, to disseminate them and to circulate them either by word of mouth or by writing or by printing. The right guaranteed thus extends not only merely to the matter but also to volume of circulation. Every citizen is entitled to propagate his views and reach any class or number of readers as he chooses subject to the limitations permitted under law.
It is further stated that the copyright does not exist in books of non- literary in nature. Books in question and in context being books of Mathematics and Science, are of non-literary in nature. Hence, they are not protected by the Copyright Act, 1956. 6
VS,J wp_13251_2011 and Crl.P_4032_2011 Therefore, the works of Mathematics and Sciences cannot be brought within the ambit and definition of Copyright, and only a Patent can be applied if any new formulae or invention or discovery is made.
The petitioner has a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) to carry on its trade, business or profession and the petitioner is in the activity of publishing books which are of benefit to the student community. Respondent No.1 has no power to create a monopoly in favour of any entity in regard to an activity and the impugned G.O.Rt.No. 858 dated 9.11.2010 is tantamount to create a monopoly in favour of one person and the consequences intended and caused by the impugned G.O. are violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The premise on which the impugned G.O. is issued, vis-a-vis piracy and ostensible purpose of protection of copy right is not in accordance with law and the intent and the consequence of the G.O. which is to create a monopoly in favour of respondent No.4 is unconstitutional being violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
The petitioner has not violated the Copyright Act, 1950 and is carrying on its operation of publishing in accordance with law. By reason of the impugned G.O. and the forcible action taken by 7 VS,J wp_13251_2011 and Crl.P_4032_2011 respondent Nos.2, 4 and 7, the petitioner is restrained from operating and conducting business which amounts to an unreasonable restriction on the right of the petitioners to carry on trade and constitutes an infringement of the constitutional rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition.
On 29.04.2011, when the matter came up for admission, while issuing notice before admission, this Court passed the following interim order.
―..... the respondents are directed not to interfere with the legitimate business operations of the petitioner.‖ Respondent No.4 - the Director, Telugu Akademi filed counter contending that the Telugu Akademi's main object is to publish the books as per the syllabus approved by the Government from time to time and the published books will be distributed to the colleges. The Telugu Akademi used to publish the books for the students and the same will be purchased by the institutions and in turn distribute to the students. In the current year (2011) the Telugu Akademi published the books and when the Telugu Akademi want to distribute the Books, it was came to light that the private colleges are also publishing the Books 8 VS,J wp_13251_2011 and Crl.P_4032_2011 without any approval and distributing to its students, which is nothing but causing loss to the Telugu Akademi by using pirated books, which is unjust.
It is further contended that the Government of A.P. issued G.O.Rt.No:858 dated 9.11.2010 stating that all the Private and Government colleges should use the Intermediate Books published by the Telugu Akademi only and any other publications, which is pirated from the syllabus approved by the Govt and failure on the part of the private colleges and other institutions will be viewed seriously. The petitioner firm pirated the Books of Telugu Akademi and prepared new books and selling the same to their students without any power or authority, for which the Telugu Akademi filed complaint against the petitioner firm.
It is further contended that the Intermediate level students should follow prescribed Text Books only. After filing complaint by the Telugu Akademi, the police authorities ceased operations by seizing the books and sealed the printing premises and initiated process for closure of the same as per the G.O.Rt.858 dated 09.11.2010. The petitioner firm is printing the intermediate Books, the Government of AP loosing its revenue and the students are becoming victims because of the illegal printing of the books, 9 VS,J wp_13251_2011 and Crl.P_4032_2011 which is in violation under the Copy Right Act. The petitioner's firm neither confers any right of ownership to print the books nor any assignment or a license by the Telugu Akademi. The Telugu Akademi has exclusive right to publish the text books. The books distributed by the petitioner's firm is identical and similar to the Telugu Akademi books, therefore, the act of the petitioner is in utter violation of G.O.Rt.No.858 dated 09.11.2010 issued by the State. The petitioner published the Telugu Akademi Intermediate Text Books, such reprinting and reproduction of government information would fall under the Copy Right Act as permission would be required for copying and publishing the text books by the petitioner. The preparation of text books is under the direction of Board of Intermediate, which is merely a department of the Government, consequently it is Government work and the copy right vests in the Telugu Akademi.
It is further contended that the object of the copy right law is to protect the original work from unlawful reproduction or exploitation of work. Without authorization to publish the books becomes infringement of copy right. The object of the pirate in all such cases is to make quick money and avoid payments of legitimate taxes and royalties in respect of text books. The loss of 10 VS,J wp_13251_2011 and Crl.P_4032_2011 the Government in the form of tax evasion amounts approximately Rs.5 crores per year by reproducing the books by the petitioner. The petitioner completely pirated the intermediate books and the authors and editors names, and place of publication, year of publication which are not disclosed or printed on those books. The petitioner is also creating lot of confusion among the students with regard to syllabus and curriculum. If books are allowed to be published by third parties like the petitioner, the object of establishing Telugu Akademi would be defeated. It may be effecting the potential market value of the original work by the Telugu Akademi. Telugu Akademi alone competent to publish the intermediate text books by virtue of G.O.Rt.858 which is exclusive copy right of the Telugu Akademi which has duly registered under the copy right Act.
It is further contended that the petitioner is willfully and deliberately publishing the intermediate text books by and large for the commercial purpose and profit motive for selling the books for the students. It is neither for private circulation nor fair use. Petitioner is not a copy right holder for publishing the text books. The Books printed and distributed by the petitioner's firm is causing loss to the Telugu Akademi and the main object of the 11 VS,J wp_13251_2011 and Crl.P_4032_2011 Government is being defeated by the illegal Act of the petitioner and requested to dismiss the writ petition.
Petitioner filed reply affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.4 reiterating the contentions urged in the petition and specifically contended that the Mathematics and Sciences are of non-literary nature and cannot be brought within the ambit and definition of Copyright Act. Even if the books are assumed to be the pirated copies of respondent No.4's books, the same action is an exception as defined under Section 52 (1) (a) and 52 (1) (h) of the Copyright Act, 1956. Once a book is declared as part of a syllabus, then, students are free to use the questions in it in any manner and therefore, guide books that are helping the students to solve the questions will also be covered under the fair use and exception to copyright. Therefore, undoubtedly the case of the petitioner amounts to exception under the Copyright Act as ―Fair Use‖, and requested to allow the writ petition.
Sri N.Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently contended that the State Government issued G.O.Rt.No.858 dated 09.11.2010 restricting the private colleges from publishing their own books, but officers of respondent No.2 invoked the said G.O. on the petitioner which act is wholly 12 VS,J wp_13251_2011 and Crl.P_4032_2011 misconceived, arbitrary and unconstitutional. The said G.O. is a direction to the respondent No.2 to initiate action against the erring private junior colleges who are preparing pirated copies of respondent No.2 intermediate text books, which is in violation of the Copyright Act, 1956. The said G.O. does not apply to the Petitioner, which is a publishing house and does not operate as private junior college. Further, the books in question being books of Mathematics and Sciences, are of non-literary in nature and hence, are not protected by the Copyright Act, 1957.
Learned Government Pleader for School Education on the other hand contended that the petitioner published Telugu Akademi Intermediate text books; reprinting, reproduction of government information would fall under the Copy Right, therefore, permission is required for copying and publishing the text books by the petitioner. The petitioner's firm is preparing the text books under the direction of the Board of Intermediate, which is merely a department of the Government and consequently it is a government work and the copy right therein belongs to the Government. Intellectual property contemplates that whoever applies mental labour to invent something is the owner of the fruits of his labour. Therefore, nobody can use the same without 13 VS,J wp_13251_2011 and Crl.P_4032_2011 such permission. Section 52 of the Copy Right Act is an exception in case of Educational Institutions for the benefit of students, whereas in the present case, the petitioner published the books exclusively for the commercial purpose and the books printed and distributed by the petitioner's firm is causing monetary loss to the Telugu Akademi, and requested to dismiss the writ petition.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a publishing house established and operating since 1993 publishing and distributing books of Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, Botany and Zoology catering to the needs of students studying Intermediate, 11th and 12th class of CBSE and ICSE Boards and students pursuing their interest to appear for EAMCET, IIT-JEE and AIEEE. The State Government issued the G.O.Rt.No.858 dated 09.11.2010 restricting the private colleges from publishing their own books.
Works in which copyright subsists are defined in Section 13 and meaning of ‗copyright' is defined in Section 14 of the Copyright Act. To decide the question as to whether the books published by the petitioner would fall under the Copyright Act, 1957, it is apropos to extract Section 13 and 14 (a) of the Copyright Act.
14
VS,J wp_13251_2011 and Crl.P_4032_2011 Section 13:
―13. Works in which copyright subsists.--
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section and the other provisions of this Act, copyright shall subsist throughout India in the following classes of works, that is to say,--
(a) Original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works;
(b) Cinematograph films; and
(c) [Sound recording].
(2) Copyright shall not subsist in any work specified in sub-section (1), other than a work to which the provisions of section 40 or section 41 apply, unless,--
(i) in the case of a published work, the work is first published in India, or where the work is first published outside India, the author is at the date of such publication, or in a case where the author was dead at that date, was at the time of his death, a citizen of India;
(ii) In the case of an unpublished work other than a 2 [work of architecture], the author is at the date of the making of the work a citizen of India or domiciled in India; and
(iii) In the case of 2 [work of architecture], the work is located in India.
Explanation.-- In the case of a work of joint authorship, the conditions conferring copyright specified in this sub-section shall be satisfied by all the authors of the work.
(3) Copyright shall not subsist--
(a) In any cinematograph film if a substantial part of the film is an infringement of the copyright in any other work;
(b) in any [sound recording] made in respect of a literary, dramatic or musical work, if in making the [sound recording], copyright in such work has been infringed.
(4) The copyright in a cinematograph film or a 1 [sound recording] shall not affect the separate copyright in any work in 15 VS,J wp_13251_2011 and Crl.P_4032_2011 respect of which or a substantial part of which, the film, or, as the case may be, the [sound recording] is made.
(5) In the case of [work of architecture], copyright shall subsist only in the artistic character and design and shall not extend to processes or methods of construction .‖ Section 14:
―14. Meaning of Copyright.-- For the purposes of this Act, ―copyright‖ means the exclusive right subject to the provisions of this Act, to do or authorize the doing of any of the following acts in respect of a work or any substantial part thereof, namely:--
(a) in the case of a literary, dramatic or musical work, not being a computer programme,--
(i) to reproduce the work in any material form including the storing of it in any medium by electronic means;
(ii) to issue copies of the work to the public not being copies already in circulation;
(iii) to perform the work in public, or communicate it to the public;
(iv) to make any cinematograph film or sound recording in respect of the work;
(v) to make any translation of the work;
(vi) to make any adaptation of the work;
(vii) to do, in relation to a translation or an adaptation of the work, any of the acts specified in relation to the work in sub-
clauses (i) to (vi);‖ Even if the books printed by the petitioner are assumed to be the pirated copies of respondent No.4's books, the same action is an exception as defined under Section 52 (1) (a) and 52 (1) (h) of the Copyright Act, 1956. Once a book is declared as part of a syllabus, then, students are free to use the questions in it in any 16 VS,J wp_13251_2011 and Crl.P_4032_2011 manner and therefore, guide books that are helping the students to solve the questions will also be covered under the fair use and exception to copyright.
To be able to gauge the full import of Section 52 of the Copyright Act, I have examined the provisions of the said law from the beginning of the statute.
The Copyright Act was enacted "to amend and consolidate"
the law relating to copyright. Copyright forms part of the bouquet of intellectual property rights and I am wondered whether copyright is also a natural right or a common law right which vests in the author or composer or producer of the work and thus whether in the absence of anything to the contrary contained in the Copyright Act, the attributes of ownership, as with respect to other forms of property, would ensure to copyright also.
Section 13 of the Act defines the works in which copyright subsists but makes the same subject to the provisions of that Section as well as other provisions of the Act. The same leads me to form an opinion that copyright, though may subsist under the natural law in any work, has been made subject to the statute and if the statute limits the works in which copyright subsists, there can be no natural copyright therein.17
VS,J wp_13251_2011 and Crl.P_4032_2011 Section 14 of the Act gives the meaning of copyright as the exclusive right, again "subject to the provisions" of the Act, to do or authorize the doing of the acts listed therein in respect of the work in which the copyright subsists. The same is again indicative of the author, composer or producer having only such rights which are prescribed thereunder and that too subject to the other provisions of the Act. In relation to literary works, with which this Court is concerned, one such right is the right to reproduce the work or any substantial part thereof. However if any other provision of the Act is to provide otherwise, the same will cease to be the copyright. Similarly, Section 2(m) defines "infringing copy"
in relation to literary works, a reproduction thereof, if made in contravention of the Act, meaning, if any provision of the Act permits any person to reproduce any work or substantial part thereof, such reproduction will not be infringing copy.
The position becomes unequivocally clear from Section 16 which provides that no person shall be entitled to copyright or any similar right in any work otherwise than under and in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act. The same unequivocally prescribes that there is no copyright except as prescribed in the 18 VS,J wp_13251_2011 and Crl.P_4032_2011 Act, converting copyright from a natural or common law right to a statutory right.
Section 51 prescribes that copyright is infringed inter alia when any person does anything exclusive right to do which has been conferred by the Act on the owner of copyright. It follows, if there is no exclusive right, there is no infringement. Section 52 lists the acts which do not constitute infringement. Thus, even if exclusive right to do something constitutes copyright, if it finds mention in Section 52, doing thereof will still not constitute infringement and the outcome thereof will not be infringing copy within the meaning of Section 2(m). Section 55 also, entitles the owner of copyright to remedies by way of injunction, damages and accounts or otherwise as are conferred by law for infringement of a right, only when copyright is infringed and except as otherwise provided by the Copyright Act.
Hon'ble Supreme Court also, in ―Entertainment Network (India) Ltd. Vs. Super Cassette Industries Ltd.1‖ held that copyright unlike trademark is a right created under the Act and that when an author claims a copyright, the right has to be 1 (2008) 13 SCC 30 19 VS,J wp_13251_2011 and Crl.P_4032_2011 determined with reference to the provisions of the Act. In ―Krishika Lulla Vs. Shyam Vithalrao Devkatta2‖, copyright was held to be a statutory right requiring statutory conditions to be satisfied.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in ―Chancellor Vs. Rameshwari Photocopy Services3‖ and ―Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. Vs. Mr.Santosh V.G.4‖ and contended that making photocopies out of the master copy and distributing the same to the students does not constitute infringement of copyright in the said books under the Copyright Act.
Copyright as a natural or common law right has thus been taken away by the Copyright Act. There can be no copyright in any author, composer or producer save as provided under the Copyright Act.
Admittedly, the petitioner is working as proprietor of Deepthi publications. The meaning of "publication" as defined in Section 3 of the Copyright Act for the purposes of the said Act is, making a work available to the public by issue of copies or by communicating the work to the public. Significantly Section 3 is 2 (2016) 2 SCC 521 3 2016 SCC OnLine Del 6713 4 2009 SCC OnLine Del 835 20 VS,J wp_13251_2011 and Crl.P_4032_2011 not qualified with the words "except where the context otherwise requires".
It is clear from the above provisions; the Copyright Act is applicable only to ‗original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works'. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner is publishing and distributing books of Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, Botany and Zoology catering to the needs of students studying intermediate, 11th and 12th class of CBSE and ICSE Boards. Mathematical questions are an expression of laws of nature. The discovery of such laws cannot confer a monopoly to those who describe it. The reason is that language is a limited medium, which enables a description of such laws of nature.
The aim of the Indian Copyright Law is to promote the progress of the useful arts and science by protecting the exclusive right of authors and inventors to benefit from their works of authorship. Copyright law protects literary, musical, graphical, or other artistic forms of the works in which the author expresses the intellectual concepts. In the normal parlance, if the excerpt is the original work of the author it is a subject-matter of the copyright. But this is not the case with mathematical equations and science subject, as they are the matter of fact and laws of nature, so each 21 VS,J wp_13251_2011 and Crl.P_4032_2011 and every person is authorized to use it without the fear of copyright infringement.
A foundational element of copyright law is that it does not grant the author of literary work protection on ideas and facts. It is the creative expression of such ideas and facts that are rewarded by law, by conferring a privilege to exclusively exploit such expression for a limited time. Law does not protect every such expression. The law affords protection to expressions that are fixed in a medium and are ―original‖.
The books printed by the petitioner herein are protected under Section 52 of the Copyright Act which states that fair use is an exception to copyright infringement in the case of an educational use for the benefit of students and educational institutions. Therefore, even if the petitioner books are assumed to be the pirated copies of respondent No.2's books, the same action can be considered as an exception as defined under Section 52 of the Copyright Act, 1957.
In India, Section 13 of the Copyright Act states that only ―original‖ literary, artistic, dramatic, and musical works are the subject matter of copyright. A literary work, in order to qualify as work in which copyright can subsist, must therefore be original. 22
VS,J wp_13251_2011 and Crl.P_4032_2011 The books in question printed by the petitioner are of non-literary in nature and hence, they would not fall within the ambit of Section 13 of the Copyright Act, 1957. Therefore, the allegations made by the respondents would not constitute any offence punishable under the provisions of the Copyright Act.
On perusal of the G.O.Rt.No.858 dated 09.11.2010, it is clear that the said G.O. was issued with a view to protect the Telugu Akademi from piracy and to save the future of millions of students. In the said G.O., the State directed the Government and Private colleges to purchase and follow the books of intermediate board that are being printed by Telugu Akademi for Telugu, English and Urdu mediums according to the syllabus prescribed by the Board of Intermediate and not to prepare the books on their own violating Copy Rights.
The last paragraph of G.O.Rt.No.858 dated 09.11.2010 is as follows:
―the above mentioned orders must be complied with by the Director, Telugu Akademi, Hyderabad without fail.‖ It is evident from the last paragraph of G.O.Rt.No.858, the Director, Telugu Akademi, Hyderabad was directed to implement the said G.O. without fail. Prima facie, the petitioner has nothing to do with the direction issued in the said G.O, but the petitioner 23 VS,J wp_13251_2011 and Crl.P_4032_2011 might have been indirectly affected due to the acts of the respondents in pursuance of the said G.O. The main object in issuing G.O.Rt.No.858 dated 09.11.2010 is to protect the Telugu Akademi from Piracy and also to control the piracy. Further, the State directed the Government and Private colleges to purchase and follow the books of intermediate board that are being printed by Telugu Akademi for Telugu, English and Urdu mediums according to the syllabus prescribed by the Board of Intermediate and not to prepare the books on their own.
Learned counsel for the petitioner specifically contended that the said G.O.Rt.No.858 dated 09.11.2010 is a direction to respondent No.4 to initiate action against the erring private junior colleges who are preparing pirated copies of respondent No.4 board of intermediate books and the said G.O. is not applicable to the petitioner, who is the publisher and does not operate any private junior college. The specific averment made in paragraph No.9 of the affidavit is as follows:
―It is respectfully submitted that the 1st respondent issuing the referred G.O. restricting the private colleges from publishing their own books and the 2nd, 4th and 7th respondent officers invoking the referred G.O. on the petitioner is wholly misconceived and arbitrary. The G.O. states that the G.O. is a direction to the 4th respondent to take and initiate action against the erring private junior colleges who are preparing pirated 24 VS,J wp_13251_2011 and Crl.P_4032_2011 copies of the 4th respondent board of intermediate books. The G.O. does not apply to the petitioner, who is a publishing house and does not operate any private junior college.‖ On the one hand, petitioner contended that G.O.Rt.No.858 dated 09.11.2010 is not applicable to her and it is a direction to respondent No.4 to initiate action against the erring private junior colleges and on the other hand, the petitioner is seeking to quash the said G.O.Rt.No.858. It can be gathered from the said G.O.Rt.No.858, the private junior colleges are affected parties to some extent, but not the petitioner.
Admittedly, the petitioner is not a junior college and is not an affected party to challenge the G.O.Rt.No.858. Assuming for a moment, if the petitioner wants to challenge the said G.O. in the interest of public, he has to file public interest litigation by specifically narrating the public injury that would be caused by the said G.O. As discussed above, the books in question printed by the petitioner are of non-literary in nature. Hence, they would not fall within the ambit of Section 13 of the Copyright Act, 1957. Though the petitioner is no way concerned with G.O.Rt.No.858 dated 09.11.2010, but as the respondents have interfered into the business activities of the petitioner and registered a criminal case against the petitioner under the guise of the said G.O., the 25 VS,J wp_13251_2011 and Crl.P_4032_2011 petitioner had no other option except to challenge G.O.Rt.No.858 dated 09.11.2010. As the said G.O. is not affecting the rights of the petitioner, the question of setting aside the same does not arise and on the other hand, the respondents under the guise of said G.O. do not have any right to interfere with the legitimate business activity of the petitioner. Therefore, it is appropriate to direct the respondents not to interfere with the legitimate business activity of the petitioner in the area of publication of books in pursuance of the impugned G.O.Rt.No.858 dated 09.11.2010. In view of my foregoing discussion, the prayer seeking to quash the said G.O.Rt.No.858 cannot be granted.
Crl.P.No.4032 of 2011:
In view of the detailed order passed in W.P.No.13251 of 2011, none of the allegations made in the complaint would constitute offence punishable under Sections 63 and 64 of the Copyright Act, 1957. Therefore, I find that it is a fit case to quash the proceedings in Crime No.49 of 2011 dated 26.04.2011 on the file of Station House Officer, Tenali I Town Police Station, Tenali.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents not to interfere with the legitimate business 26 VS,J wp_13251_2011 and Crl.P_4032_2011 operations of the petitioner under the guise of G.O.Rt.No.858 dated 09.11.2010. No costs.
Criminal petition is allowed. The proceedings in Crime No.49 of 2011 dated 26.04.2011 on the file of Station House Officer, Tenali I Town Police Station, Tenali, are hereby quashed against the petitioner herein.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in these Petitions shall stand closed.
______________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 21.02.2024 Ksp