RAMESH CHAND AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On unusual facts and under unusual circumstances our writ jurisdiction is invoked in this matter. What obtensibly is a claim to print and publish the Dainik Bhaskar, a local Hindi daily, is a tug of war, in fact and substance, for effective exercise of control and ownership of the newspaper, fought evidently on a slippery field. Most unfortunately, it is a family feud. Father and son are pitted against each other but they are currently the Managing Director, and Director respectively, of the Company owning the newspaper.

(2.) As we proceed to state briefly the facts first, we make it clear that we would definitely deal, with though at the end, the legal contention concerning our jurisdiction to entertain the petition. Suffice it to say at this stage that though the controversy involves interpretation mainly of Ss.5, 6, 8 and 8-B of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1987, for short, the Act, it is S.8-C of the Act that gives rise to objection concerning our jurisdiction inasmuch as appeals are provided thereunder against orders passed under Ss.6 and 8-B of the Act.

(3.) It is evidently a case of contest between several "declarations" and the legal position is that according to S.5, no newspaper can be printed and published in India without "declaration'" contemplated thereunder being made, and authenticated in accordance with S.6 in respect thereof. Several declarations, of which copies are on record before us in this matter as Annexures to the petition, are of different dates and of different particulars. Annexure P-2, however is same as Annexure R-1 of respondent 3's return. Indeed, the real contest is between the declarations Annexure P-1, dt. 11-3-1987 made and subscribed by the petitioner and two declarations Annexure P-2, dated 23-3-1987 and P-6 dt. 11-4-1987, both made and subscribed by respondent 4. Even so, it would be necessary for us to consider also two other declarations, made and subscribed by the petitioner, Annexure P-23, at Jhansi on 4-5-1988, which was authenticated there; and Annexure P-33, dt. 12-5-1988, authentication of which was deferred by respondent No. 2, District Magistrate, Gwalior.