KRISHNA CHANDRA VISHNOI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners Sri Kapil Dev and Sri S.N. Shukla, the learned counsel for the State.

(2.) The petitioner no. 1, a correspondent of M/s Filmco Photonews,having its registered office at 109/246, R.K. Nagar, Kanpur and petitioner no.2, a Cameraman, are representative of the said news agency which isrecognised by the Government of India as well as State of U.P. The aforesaidnews agency carries out the business of covering news to be published innewspapers as well as for telecast through electronic media includingDoordarshan and other news channels. M/s Filmco Photonews, of which the petitioners are representatives asCorrespondent and Cameraman, is registered with the Registrar ofNewspapers, Government of India w.e.f. 23.9.88 and the petitionerss arerecognized as representatives of the said news agency by the PressRecognition Committee since 1989 under the U.P. Press Representative Recognition Rules, 1978. The petitioners were also issued Press Cards andwere given all the benefits, which were otherwise available to such accreditedjournalists.

(3.) It was in the year 2003 that the petitioners were refused the renewal oftheir accreditation by the State Government on the ground that they were nothaving any independent channel of their own. The petitioners filed a writpetition before this Court challenging the aforesaid order bearing writ petitionno. 802 (MB) of 2003. It was urged by the petitioners that non renewal ofpress card/accreditation to the petitioners on the ground that they were nothaving independent channel was not reasonable and that even free lancejournalists and other press persons, who do not own an independent channel,have been given the press cards. The writ petition was finally disposed of by aDivision Bench of this Court in which one of us (Pradeep Kant, J.) was amember, with a direction to the petitioner to make a representation, which wasto be considered and decided by the State Government taking intoconsideration that the petitioners have been allowed the same privilege orstatus, right from the year 1989 and whether on non-possession of anyindependent channel by the press person, the renewal of such press cards canbe refused.