BHARATI PRESS Vs. CHIEF SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case the petitioner, who is the keeper of the Bharati Press, Purulia, has moved under Section 23, Press (Emergency Powers) Act (XXIII 23. of 1931) (herein, after called the Press Act) for setting aside an order calling upon him to deposit security under Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the said Act.

(2.) ON 9-9 1949, a notice was served by affixing a copy thereof on the premises of the said Bharati Press. The notice is dated Ranchi 8-9-1949, and is addressed to the keeper of the Bharati Press, Purulia. It has been signed by one B. K. Dutt, described as Under Secretary to Government and "by order of the Governor of Bihar" requiring the said keeper to deposit with the Deputy Commissioner Manbhum, on or before 19-9 1949, security to the amount of Rs. 2,000 in money or in Government securities. This demand for security, as appears from the notice, has been made under Sub-section (3) of Section 3, Press Act, and the notice further recites that the demand for security has been made inasmuch as it appears to the Governor of Bihar that the Bharati Press, Purulia, is used for the purpose of printing and publishing matters specified in the schedule annexed hereto which are of the nature described in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 1, Press (Emergency Powers) Act, 1931, (XXIII [23] of 1931)." In the schedule to the notice is mentioned "The Bengalee leaflet entitled 'Sangram'.

(3.) THE learned Government Advocate on behalf of the State objected to the last question being raised at a late stage of the hearing. THE point being one of constitutional importance, the learned Government Advocate claimed that he should have been given sufficient notice of the matter and the petitioner, therefore, should not be allowed to raise this question. It is true that this constitutional point has been raised at a very late stage of the proceedings and ordinarily the Court would have been disinclined to entertain it, but as the question is one of importance and affects the very jurisdiction of the State Government to take action under the specified provisions of the Press Act, the petitioner could not be shut out from raising the question even though at a late stage of the proceedings.