UNION OF INDIA Vs. DAINIK HIMACHAL SEWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in these five writ petitions are small newspapers registered with the Registrar of Newspapers for India (RNI) from different dates having different registration numbers. They are also registered under the provisions of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867. The Director General, Directorate of Advertising & Visual Publicity (respondent No.2 herein) (for short `the DAVP') is entrusted with the duty and responsibility of release of Government advertisement to the newspapers registered with the RNI and empanelled with it. For the purpose of release of advertisements, it executes a rate contract with the registered newspapers and on that basis the advertisements are released to such newspapers from time to time.

(2.) All these petitioners were empanelled with respondent no.2 and the rate contracts issued by respondent No.2 were extended upto September, 2002. However respondent No.2 stopped releasing advertisements to the petitioners from 25th July, 2002. Thereafter, these petitioners received on different dates in August, 2002 letters from the DAVP informing that for the reasons contained in these letters, it was not possible to make use of their publication for release of Government advertisements in future. The basic reason given in all these letters is that their newspapers were not available in the market/news agency counters as per the report available in the directorate. It may, however, be appropriate to reproduce the language used in these letters in respect of each petitioner.

(3.) In CWP Nos. 5978 and 5979/2002, the petitioners received letter dated 6th August, 2002 to the following effect: