M K AGARWAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners numbering two, a Chartered Accountant and an Advocate, have Filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking the following reliefs :-

(2.) There are three respondents, namely, (1) Union of India in the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting; (2) Registrar of Newspapers for India under the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 (forshort 'the PRB Act');and(3) Registrar of Trade Marks under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act. 1958 (for short 'the Trade Marks Act'). At the outset it was pointed out that the petitioners had no interest in the matter, they being interlopers and could not maintain such a petition. It was said that they are front men of some newspapers as prayer (i) would show where the last line refers to "same or similar names as that of applicant newspapers". We will come to this point at a later stage. When this petition came up for admission before avacation Judge on 22 December 1993, he issued notice in the petition as well as in an application seeking interim relief for 24 December 1993. At this stage respondents 2 and 3 were restrained from registering any foreign newspaper with the title similar to the title "SUN". This order was made on an application (C.M. 9410/93) on behalf of M/s.Bandhu Associates seeking to be impleaded as a petitioner in the petition. In their application Bandhu Associates, apart from seeking to be impleaded as a party in the petition, also sought restraint on the respondents from reg- istering any name, or similar name which was already registered with the Registrar of Newspapers for India under thePRB Act including the name of the applicant. Similar restraint was sought on the Registrar of Trade Marks as well that that respondent be restrained from registering any foreign newspaper with the same or similar title to the title "SUN". Without Bandhu Associates being impleaded as a party in the petition, the court passed the restraint order as abovementioned. Another application (C.M. 9399/93) was filed by M/s. Times Publishing House Limited for intervention. In this also prayer was made respecting the newspaper of the applicant under the name "FINANCIAL TIMES" as in the case of "SUN". On this application, while issuing notice the court recorded submission of Mr. Anil Dewan, learned counsel for Financial Times Ltd., U.K., that he would also be moving an application to be impleaded as a party in the petition. The court recorded that Mr. Dewan drew its attention to a case pending in the Bangalore City Civil Court between Financial Times Ltd., London, and M/s. Times Publishing House Limited. In this view of the matter the court, therefore, did not pass any interim order. The application for impleadment later filed by Financial Times Limited is C.M. 20/94. At a later date M/s. Bandhu Associates withdrew their appliction (C.M. 9410/93) as they said that they had themselves filed a substantive writ petition being CWP No. 43/94. Their application was, therefore, dismissed and the interim orders made earlier were vacated.

(3.) Before dealing with various other applications filed in the matter seeking to be impleaded as parties we directed that we would First like to determine the question of maintainability of the petition itself. The other applications are: C.M. 9400/93 by From Gupta, a public man; C.M. 9401/93 by journalist Ravinder Singh; C.M. 348/94 by V.N. Narayanan, Editor-in-Chiefof Tribune Publications; and C.M. 9409/93 by lqbal Krishan Sharma. In answer to show cause notice, respondents have filed their affidavits in reply.