PRINTERS MYSORE PRIVATE LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful petitioner in W.P. No. 1054 of 1965 on the file of this Court has filed this petition seeking certificates under Articles 133(1)(a), 133(1)(b) and 133(1)(c) of the Constitution of India.

(2.) In the Writ petition in question, the petition's contention was that the Indian Express and the Sunday Standard Bangalore, are new newspapers newly added links to the Indian Express chain and therefore, it prayed that this "Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or Direction: (1) forbidding respondents 1 to 3 from granting in Respondents 4, 5 and/or 6, for Indian Express and Sunday Standard, Bangalore, any newsprint or newsprint quota, the said papers being new newspapers added to the existing claim of Indian Express Newspapers; and (2) Forbidding respondents 4 and 5 their servants and agents and any of their subsidiary companies from diverting using or otherwise appropriating for Indian Express and/or Sunday Standard, Bangalore, the newsprint allotted to Indian express or Sunday Standard published from any other centre, or to any other newspaper owned or controlled by respondents 4 or 5 and directing respondents 1 to 3 to prevent any such diversion, use or appropriation." This Court rejected the contention of the petitioner that the Indian Express and the Sunday Standard, Bangalore, are new newspapers. It came to the conclusion that those papers were being in Chittoor but they are now published from Bangalore. In the Writ petition it was contended that in view of the provisions of the Press and Registration of Books Act, the place of publication of a newspaper cannot be changes and if so changed the newspaper published from the new centre would have to be considered as a new newspaper. This Court found no support for that contention from the provisions of the Press and Registration Books Act. It opined that the right to publish a newspaper under a particular name is property just as any other property and that right is subject to the ordinary law relating to property, so long as there is no law restricting the right of an owner of a newspaper from changing the venue of its publication, publishing a newspaper like any other business can be shifted from one place to another within the country. This Court also case to the conclusion that the policy adumbrated in the "Red Book" has not the force of law. Further it opined that no Writ of Mandamus can be issued to respondents 4 to 6 as they cannot be considered as public authorities, nor the act complained of can be considered as a dereliction of public or statutory duty. This Court also held that no writ can be issued against a public authority requiring it to see that there is no contravention of law because such a direction is incapable of implementation. If there is contravention of law the same has to be dealt with in accordance of law the same has to be dealt with in accordance with law. In view of those conclusions this Court refused to grant the Writ prayed for.

(3.) From what has been stated above, it is seen that the subject matter of the dispute before this Court is not something that is capable of valuation. Further, it cannot be considered as 'property'.