STATE OF TRIPURA Vs. SUBAL KUMAR DEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Order dated 20.03.2010 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 399 of 2009 is subjected to review by this instant review application in view of the minutes of the 7th Meeting of Circulation Committee held on 18th and 20th March, 2010 at the Directorate of I & CA, Gandhighat, Agartala and also in view of the letter dated 30.3.2010 of the Audit Bureau of Circulations (for short, 'ABC') where under it has been communicated that the newspaper referred under letter dated 23.3.2010 are not the members of the ABC and, therefore, any circulation certified by any other authority except ABC cannot be verified by them even though the said circulation certificate may have been issued by the Audit Firms empanelled with ABC and that ABC has not endorsed nor certified circulation figures of the above four publications as these publications are not members of the Bureau and are not required to follow the laid down procedures and guidelines for Bureau's audit. It is claimed that in view of the subsequent events which surfaced per minutes of the 7th Meeting of the Circulation Committee, the order dated 20.3.2010 is sought to be reviewed by the review applicants.

(2.) Respondent herein is the owner, printer, publisher and editor of the daily newspaper "Syandan Patrika" printed and published from Agartala in Bengali language, which is one of the most popular newspaper in the State of Tripura having large circulation. His newspaper being degraded from category A-1 to B despite fulfillment of every required information approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 399 of 2009 for a direction to the Respondents therein, now, the review applicants, to categorize his newspaper "Syandan Patrika" to category A from Category B. The writ petition was contested by the review applicants and this Court after meticulous consideration of the facts involved, the annexures and submissions advanced by the learned Counsel of either party directed the review applicants to categories "Syandan Patrika" at least in category 'A' per 2009 guidelines and provide advertisement facilities to run and manage the newspaper smoothly. It would be appropriate to state at this stage that the learned Counsel representing the State Respondents while arguing the writ petition accepted that "Syandan Patrika" has fulfilled all eligibility criteria to categorize it in Category 'A' per 2009 guidelines. In view of the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel representing the State Respondents, the review applicants herein, this Court after taking into consideration all the matters in its entirety directed the review applicants to categorize "Syandan Patrika" in Category 'A' per 2009 guidelines and to provide advertisement facilities.

(3.) From the order dated 20.3.2010 it would appear to us that the counsel representing the review applicants did locate a case in favour of the writ Petitioner, the Respondent herein and thus, agreed to the case projected by the Respondents herein, in other words it would be appropriate to say that the order dated 20.3.2010 sought to be review was passed by this Court in consensus of the parties to the proceeding. In such a situation whether an order passed in the manner as indicated above can be a subject of review under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In my considered view the appropriate answer would be "No". The order sought to be reviewed was apparently passed on the basis of the facts involved therein and also the supporting materials annexed to the writ petition by the Respondent for categorization per 2009 guidelines. The order was passed on the basis of the materials that existed on 20.03.2010.