IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.30693 OF 2014 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
Rores micro entrepreneur Development Trust Having its office at:
Srinivasapura post Kolar-563 135 Represented by its secretary Mr. P.S.Reddy (Party-In-Person). ... Petitioner (Party-In-Person) AND:
1. Additional Deputy Commissioner & Additional District Magistrate Chikkaballapura District, Chikkaballapura-563 125.
2. Mr. G.V. Manjunatha S/o Mr. Y.V. Venkata Reddy, Aged Major, R/at Janajugruthi Vedike, Near Post Office, NR Extension Chintamani, Chikkaballapura District-563 125. ... Respondents (By Smt. Niloufer Akbar, AGA. for R-1 Sri Umapathi, advocate for R-2) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to direct the respondent No.1 to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 20.01.2012 (At Annexure-K) dated 22.08.2013 (At Annexure-S) and 14.11.2013 (At Annexure-T) and cancel the declaration dated 05.05.2011 made by the respondent No.2 (At annexure-F) etc., This writ petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group, this day, the court made the following:
O R D E R The petitioner, party-in-person is absent.
2. The petitioner in this writ petition is seeking a direction to respondent No.1 to consider his representations dated 20.01.2012 at Annexure-K, 22.08.2013 at Annexure-S and 14.11.2013 at Annexure-T addressed to the Additional Deputy Commissioner & Additional District Magistrate, Chikkaballapura District, seeking cancellation of declaration issued under the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, in favour of respondent No.2.
3. The petitioner is a registered public charitable trust formed under the Indian Trusts Act, 1882. In order to facilitate discussion and bring about the awareness amongst the weaker sections of the society, the petitioner decided to publish a fortnightly newspaper. Accordingly, the petitioner through its Secretary instructed one of its employee i.e. respondent No.2 to make necessary application on behalf of the petitioner to Registrar of Newspapers of India, for the registration and title verification of newspaper titled ‘Vasthavamsha Suddiya Arivu’. Pursuant to such application, the Registrar of Newspaper of India, approved the title ‘Vasthavamsha Suddiya Arivu’. A copy of registration is produced at Annexure-B. Further, the case of the petitioner is that respondent No.2 also furnished the copy of the declaration form dated 28.05.2010, to the petitioner which indicated as follows;
i) The newspaper was owned by the petitioner.
ii) The publisher was Mr.P.S.Reddy, the Secretary of the petitioner.
iii) The Printing Press was M/s. Sheetal Advertising.
iv) The Printer was Mr. Kishore.
v) The place of publication was ‘Janajagruthi Vedike.
vi) The editor of the Newspaper was the respondent No.2.
The said declaration has been produced at Annexure-C. Pursuant to the declaration made by respondent No.2, the newspaper was printed and published. Since the declaration has been issued in the name of respondent No.2, the petitioner has filed suit in O.S.No.201/2011 for permanent injunction restraining the defendant i.e. respondent No.2 herein from interfering and prohibiting him to publish any newspaper under title of ‘Vasthavamsha Suddiya Arivu’. In the meantime, the petitioner has given a representation to respondent No.1 seeking for cancellation from declaration dated 05.05.2011. Respondent No.1 has given an endorsement on 18.03.2013, rejecting the representation on the ground that the suit filed by the petitioner is pending in O.S.No.201/2011 before Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Chitamani. Subsequently, the petitioner has withdrawn the suit in O.S.No.201/2011, by its order dated 19.03.2013. The petitioner again has given a representation to respondent No.1 as per Annexure-S dated 22.08.2013 for cancellation of declaration. In spite of that representation, no action has been taken, hence, he has filed this writ petition.
4. Since, no action has been taken by the respondent No.1 on the representation filed on 22.08.2013 by the petitioner vide Annexure-S, it would suffice if a direction, is given to respondent No.2 to consider the representation dated 22.08.2013.
5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. The petitioner is also directed to file an additional representation along with necessary documents to respondent No.1 within four weeks from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order.
Respondent No.1 is directed to consider the same in accordance with law within three months from the date of receipt of additional representation filed by the petitioner.
Sd/-
JUDGE HA/-