SEVANTILAL CHIMANLAL SHAH Vs. V D DALVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for directions and orders quashing and setting aside the decision of the Post Master General, Bombay, refusing renewal of registration of the petitioner's monthly magazine "savita" under the provisions of the Post Office Act and also for direc tions requiring the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's case for registration purposes of the said monthly magazine under the said Act,

(2.) THE relevant facts are that the petitioner started publishing of the said monthly magazine "savita" in August 1947. The circulation of the said magazine at the date of the petition was 14,000 copies out of which 3,500 copies were meant for despatch by post. In pursuance of an application made for the purpose in 1950 the petitioner's publication was registered under the said Act under No. B 5750. It has been the invariable practice of the Post Master General to issue notice in printed form to all registered newspapers in connection with the renewal of registration at the end of every year for the next year. Registration under the statutory rules made for the purpose is granted tor each year expiring on December 31st of the year. The statutory rules until the same were amended in September 1957 inter alia provided that "x x x x newspapers, applications for renewal of registration of which are made within a month prior to the date of expiry, shall be renewed within a week from the dale ot receipt of the application of renewal x x x". The petitioner continued to submit annually the applications for renewal on printed forms provided for the purpose. The registration of the petitioner's publication was from year to year renewed and the last registration thereof expired on December 31st, 1957. By an application dated November 18th, 1957 the petitioner applied for renewal of registration of his publication under the Act. By his letter dated November 30th, 1957 the Post Master General wrote to the petitioner stating that the registration of the petitioner's publication was withdrawn with effect from January 1st, 1958. By his another letter dated January 3rd, 1958 the Post Master General wrote to the petitioner to state that renewal of registration of his publication could be considered when the petitioner complied with certain provisions of the Act. Bv his another letter, dated January 30th, 1958 the Post Master General again rejected the application for renewal of registration of the petitioner's publication for the year 1958. The reasons mentioned in tho correspondence by the Post Master General will have to be scrutinised in detail in connection with the contentions ot the petitioner in this petition.

(3.) ON Februay 24th, 1958 the petitioner filed this petition. The petitioner inter alia contends that refusal of the Post Master General to renew registration of the petitioner's publications was mala fide and discriminatory inasmuch as publications similar to the petitioner's publication continued to be registered under the Act. The petitioner tor the said reasons also contends that the decision of the Post Master General was arbitrary and capricious. The petitioner further contends that under the statutory rules for registration once a publication is registered as a newspaper under the Act renewal of registration must be granted except when two specific conditions mentioned in Sub-clause (2) of section 9 of the Act are found as not having been complied with. Except for the purpose of determining the question of compliance of the two conditions no further enquiries are contemplated or permissible under the statutory rules and that the reasons given by the Post Master General in the correspondence for refusal to renew registration did not relate to non-compliance of such conditions. The petitioner therefore contends that in refusing to renew registration the Post Master General acted beyond the scope of his authority and jurisdiction and the refusal was in exercise of powers not existing in law and illegal. The petitioner also contends that he had not been given any notice in respect of the question of refusal of renewal of registration and that he was entitled to have an opportunity of being heard in that connection. The petitioner therefore contends that ru!es of natural justice have not been observed. The petitioner further contends that the right to transmit his publication at concessional rates is a statutory right of the petitioner and by reason of the refusal to renew registration the petitioner has been deprived of his statutory right and it. was incumbent on the respondents in law to renew registration of the petitioner's publication. The petitioner contends that bv reason of refusal of renewal of registration and the consequent withdrawal of concessional rates for transmission of the petitioner's publication by post, the petitioner had been directly made to incur such heavy costs and undergo such unhealthy competition that the petitioner was deprived of his fundamental right to trade. The petitioner therefore contends that the decision of the Post Master General was in violation ot fundamental rights and invalid by reason of provisions of Article 19 of the Constitution. For all these reasons the petitioner contends that the decision of the Post Master General should be set aside and he should be directed to reconsider the question of renewal of registration of the petitioner's publication once again.