SRI SUSHIL CHOUDHURY Vs. THE STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After hearing both Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Mr. B.C. Das, the learned Advocate General, Tripura, representing the State-respondents, I am of the considered view that this writ petition can be remanded to the Director of Information, Cultural AffairsTourism Department and Head of Circulation Committee, Government of Tripura (respondent No. 2) for fresh consideration of the case in accordance with law.

(2.) But before that, I still think it necessary to refer some of the important facts of the case. The petitioner is the owner, Printer, Publisher and Editor of a local daily, namely, "Dainik Ganadoot", which is printed and published from Agartala in Bengali language. According to the petitioner, his newspaper is one of the most popular newspaper in Tripura with large circulation. It is his case that its role in enlightening the public opinion against corruption and misrule and its espousal of public cause from time to time ever since its inception in 1968 have incurred the wrath of the State Government. In the advertisement policy notified on 20-11-1985, four classes of publications were envisaged, i.e. (1) Dailies; (2) By-weeklies and Tri-Weeklies; (3) Weeklies and (4) Fortnightlies/Monthlies/Bi-Monthlies and others. Daily newspapers were further categorized into "A" category, "B" category and "C" category in accordance with their circulation, size and pages. For equitable distribution of advertisement to the newspapers, it was provided, inter alia, that a rotation was to be maintained to ensure that the newspapers belonging to category "A" would get 40% of the advertisements. Different rates of payment were also prescribed for different categories of publication in the said advertisement policy.

(3.) It would appear that the respondent No. 1 issued the Notification dated 29-2-1988 stipulating that pending finalization of the new advertisement policy, the Government would follow the existing Policy Rules subject to directions and observations made by the erstwhile Gauhati High Court in Civil Rule No. 889/1987 and that every effort was to be made to equalize the quantum of advertisement so far issued to the newspapers belonging to "A" category. Rate of display advertisement was also revised by the said notification. In the civil rule in question, the erstwhile Gauhati High Court held that discriminatory allotment of government advertisements to different newspapers of same category would impair freedom of the press. "Dainik Ganadoot" was initially categorized as "B" category newspaper and was, thereafter up-graded to an "A" category newspaper with effect from 18-4-1988 on the basis of the Notification dated 18-4-1988 issued by the Principal Secretary, Govt. of Tripura in the Department of ICAT. The respondent No. 1 subsequently by the Notification dated 23-10-1998 published the Tripura Advertisement Policy Rules, 1998 in supersession of the previous advertisement policy and the amendments thereof and the same came into force on 1-12-1998. However, the State-respondents refused to categorize the newspaper of the petitioner as "A-1" under the new Rules and rather categorized it as "A" category, which was not the top most category thereunder; this amounted to down-gradation of his newspaper. This prompted the petitioner to file W.P. (C) No. 360 of 2000 before this Court, which by the order dated 13-2-2002 passed appropriate directions whereupon the State-respondents provisionally granted A-1 category to his newspaper vide the Memorandum dated 18-5-2002. However, to the consternation of the petitioner, another Notification bearing dated 20-12009 was issued by the State-respondents revising the extant advertisement policy in the form of Tripura Advertisement Guidelines, 2009 to be effective from 1-1-2009. By means of this revised policy, the categorization was reverted from four categories to three categories, namely, A, B and C by providing different eligibility criteria for each of the three categories. Due to the protest made by most of newspapers in the State, some changes were made in the revised Guidelines, 2009 by issuing the Notification dated 249-2009. The petitioner thereafter applied for categorization of his newspaper in the "A" category, which is the topmost category by submitting the requisite information and documents in accordance with the new Guidelines. The petitioner also submitted therein the certificate of circulation issued by the ABC approved Auditor and the list of sales agents at the District, Sub-Division and Block levels. However, no such categorization was forthcoming despite fulfilling the criteria laid down in the said revised Guidelines; this deprived the newspaper of the advertisement as per its entitlement. On the contrary, he received the letter dated 5-11-2009 from the respondent No. 3 informing him that his newspaper had been downgraded to category-B from his earlier status as category A-1. The representation made by him to the State-respondents to restore his newspaper to A-1 category by his letter dated 24-3-2010 was replied by the respondent No. 2 in his communication dated 9-4-2010 informing him that the Circulation Committee did not recommend the granting of A-category status to his newspaper. On the other hand, the petitioner in the meantime has come to learn that the State-respondents by abuse of power and fraudulently brought the Tripura Edition of Aajkal named "Aajkal Tripura" within the purview of the revised Guidelines and granted it the status of A-category. According to the petitioner, from the little amount of information he managed to obtain through Right to Information Act, 2005, there is no evidence to show that any certificate was issued by the ABC in respect of the circulation of this newspaper from Kolkata indicating that it had a circulation of not less than 15,000 copies in the State of Tripura. Thus, the grant of the status of A-category to Aajkal Tripura is contrary to the revised guidelines and is liable to be cancelled. Such action of the State-respondents is not only arbitrary but is discriminatory against the newspaper of the petitioner; Aajkal Tripura did not and does not fulfil the criteria laid down by the revised guidelines with respect to the number of circulation, the number of authorized sale agents for its enlistment as A-category newspaper. Aggrieved by the hostile treatment meted out to him, the petitioner again submitted a representation dated 21-1-2011 to the respondent No. 2 to grant him A-category status to his newspaper and cancel the A-category status granted to Aajkal Tripura as it was illegally granted. In reply, the Special Secretary, ICAT Department in his letter dated 2-2-2011 requested the petitioner to submit some documents for up-grading his newspaper oblivious of the fact that all the requisite documents had already been submitted along with his application dated 12-6-2009 submitted by him earlier. The notice of demand for justice issued by him to the respondents No. 1 and 2 on 28-2-2011 requesting them to cancel the status of A-category granted to the Aajkal Tripura and to grant his newspaper the status of A-category was replied by the respondent No. 1 in his letter dated 17-3-2011 wherein he referred to the amendment of the Tripura