IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.46080 OF 2016 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
JOHN A MONIS S/O LATE SANTHAN MONIS AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS PRINTER AND PUBLISHSER DIRVEM MONTHLY PINTO COMPLEX 1ST FLOOR BIKARNAKATTE MANGALORE-575005. … PETITIONER (By Mr. RAGHUPATHY T N, ADV.,) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001.
2. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE / DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT MANGALURU-575001.
3. RONALD J SEQUEIRA S/O LATE FELIX SEQUEIRA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS PRESIDENT KONKANI WRITERS AND ARTISTS ASSOCIATION BAAL HILLS BAALA POST MANGALORE-575030. … RESPONDENTS (By Mr. Y D HARSHA AGA FOR R1 & R2 Mr. M VINOD KUMAR ADV., FOR R3 (ABSENT)) - - -
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to declare that the order of R-2 at Annex-A is illegal and quash the same and etc.
This Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ group this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri.Raghupathy T.N., learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri.Y.D.Harsha, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. The petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition, the petitioner who is an editor of Dirvem Monthly has challenged the validity of the order passed by the District Magistrate dated 18.07.2016 by which the petitioner has been warned that in case he writes any defamatory article or does not conform to the professional ethics or indulges in yellow journalism, recommendation shall be made for cancellation of the license of the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the District Magistrate has no authority in law to pass such an order. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the Deputy Commissioner has power under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, to pass such an order.
5. Be that as it may, it is well settled in law that this Court does not indulge in an academic exercise. From the scrutiny of the order dated 18.07.2016, it is evident that admittedly the aforesaid order was passed over one year and the aforesaid period has expired on 17.07.2017. Therefore, it is not necessary for this Court to examine the welfare of the order dated 18.07.2016 passed by the District Magistrate.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach this Court as and when the occasion so arises, leaving the question open.
Sd/- JUDGE RV