(1.) CM Application No. 10452 of 2010 has been filed by the original writ Petitioner Mr. Sanjay Agarwal seeking recall of the order dated 28th July 2010 passed by this Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4497 of 2010 (along with CM Application Nos. 8918 of 2010 and 9292 of 2010) and for disposal of W.P. (C) No. 4497 of 2010 on merits. A further prayer is to restrain the Respondent No. 3 M/s. D.B. Corp Limited or its agents from publishing the newspaper titled 'Dainik Bhaskar' in Ranchi (Jharkhand) till the disposal of W.P. (C) 4497 of 2010. A third prayer for a direction to the Registrar of Newspapers for India ('RNI'), Respondent No. 1, to produce all the records/files pertaining to the verification of title/grant of certificate or registration in favour of Respondent No. 3 for publication of the newspaper titled 'Dainik Bhaskar' from Ranchi. Since the application was based on the information posted on the website of the office of the RNI that a certificate of registration was granted by the RNI on 28th July 2010 to Respondent No. 3 in respect of the newspaper 'Dainik Bhaskar' to be published in Ranchi a fourth prayer is that the said certificate of registration should be stayed.
(2.) The background to the present applications is that the above writ petition was filed by Mr. Sanjay Agarwal challenging the communication dated 30th June 2010 issued by the RNI to the Sub Divisional Officer-incharge ('SDO'), Ranchi, Respondent No. 2, verifying the availability of the title 'Dainik Bhaskar' applied for by Respondent No. 3. It stated that the said title is recognized under the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 ('PRB Act'). The writ petition also challenged an earlier verification dated 15th February 2010 issued by the RNI stating the title 'Dainik Bhaskar' was available in terms of the proviso to Section 6 of the PRB Act. The said letter dated 15th February 2010 of the RNI permitted Respondent No. 2 to authenticate the declaration of the publisher/printer as required under Section 5 of the PRB Act.
(3.) One of the grounds of challenge by the Petitioner to the aforementioned verification dated 15th February 2010 and the subsequent communication dated 30th June 2010 was that no such verification could have been issued by the RNI in terms of the proviso to Section 6 of the PRB Act without there first being a declaration made and subscribed by the publisher and printer in respect of the newspaper to be published from Ranchi and further without there being authorization in writing from the co-owner since the publisher/printer of the proposed newspaper was not its only owner. The Petitioner's case was that he was a co-owner in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dwarka Prasad Agarwal (D) By LRs v. B.D. Agarwal, 2003 6 SCC 230 read with a consequential order issued on 18th June 2004 by the RNI by way of implementation of the said judgment. In other words, the Petitioner contended that the requirement of the co-owner having to give an authorization for the making of the declaration as mandated by Section 5(2B) of the PRB Act was not complied with. The Petitioner also assailed the impugned orders/communication of the RNI as being violative of the proviso to Section 6 of the PRB Act.