Hon'ble Yogendra Kumar Sangal,J.
In these three writ petitions, common question of facts and law are involved, hence they are taken up together.
Heard Shri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri D.K. Upadhyay, learned Chief Standing Counsel.
The petitioner who claims to be accredited correspondent of Urdu Daily 'Jadeed Amal' has approached this Court challenging his eviction from official accommodation provided to him being accredited correspondent of the said Urdu Daily.
It shall be appropriate to give a brief account of the controversy involved :
Jadeed Amal is an Urdu Daily published from Lucknow. It has been recognised by the Registrar of the newspapers. The petitioner was enrolled as accredited correspondent in the year 2003 by the "Accreditation Committee" constituted by the State Government in pursuance to a Government Order. From time to time, accreditation granted to the petitioner in the year 2003 was extended by the respondents. He has also been allotted government accommodation subject to payment of rent in accordance with rules. However, it has been stated by the petitioner's counsel that the government accommodation was provided to him in the year 1994 in his personal name and not as accredited correspondent as observed by the respondent while passing the impugned order.
It has been submitted by the petitioner's counsel that the petitioner 2 had filed a writ petition No.70200 of 2009 in this Court at Allahabad against Shri Vijay Shanker Pandey, the then Addl. Cabinet Secretary of the State of U.P. The said writ petition is still pending. It has been further stated that one Mithilesh Kumar Singh had filed two writ petitions No.8740 and 9343 - both (M/B) of 2007 in this Court against the construction raised by the State Government at various places in the city of Lucknow. The matter has also gone to Hon'ble Supreme Court and an interim order was passed. Now, it is the subject matter of decision by a Special Bench consisting five Hon'ble Judges of this Court.
Further submission of the petitioner's counsel is that by order dated 23.6.2009, the accreditation was cancelled by the State Government, hence the petitioner had filed a writ petition No.6195(M/B) of 2009, in which an interim order was passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 3.7.2009. Later on, the State Government has recalled the order dated 23.6.2009 by subsequent order dated 17.7.2009. Hence, the said writ petition has become infructuous.
It has been further stated by the petitioner's counsel that on account of public interest litigation filed against the State Government and its authorities, not less than a person was holding the post of Addl. Cabinet Secretary, again by order dated 24.12.2009, the accreditation was cancelled.
Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed a writ petition No.5115(M/B) of 2010, in which a Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 27.5.2010, granted four weeks' time to file counter affidavit and directed to list the writ petition in the month of July, 2010 itself.
Attention of this Court has also been invited by the petitioner's counsel that the State has instituted an enquiry to be conducted by Local Intelligence Unit. Feeling aggrieved, the newspaper Jadeed Amal has filed a writ petition No.4729(M/B) of 2009. By an interim order dated 26.5.2009, a Division bench of this Court in the said writ petition has stayed the enquiry by Local Intelligence Unit with liberty to obtain information from the Registrar, Newspaper of India. Writ petition No.4729(M/B) of 2009 is pending.
It has also been stated by the petitioner's counsel that the State Accreditation Committee has been regulating the procedure with regard to grant of accreditation and cancellation thereof in pursuance to the Government Order. Admittedly, there is no statutory rules. By 3 Government Order dated 16.6.2009(Annexure-5), issued by the Principal Secretary, Information (Shri Vinai Shanker Pandey), Government of U.P., the earlier procedure has been changed and power to cancel the accreditation of newspapers' reporters has been given to the Director, Information. The order dated 16.6.2009 has also been impugned in writ petition No.5115(M/B) of 2010.
While assailing the impugned order as well as the earlier orders, it has been pleaded by the petitioner's counsel that action has been taken mala fidely since the petitioner has been pursuing the public interest litigation filed in public interest in this Court at Allahabad and Lucknow. It has also been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that according to information communicated by the Directorate of Advertising and Visual Publicity (in short, DAVP), the total publication of the newspapers Jadeed Amal in the year 2008 was 74,252. However, while considering the accreditation, a finding has been recorded that the publication is less than 25000. It has been further alleged that the newspaper Jadeed Amal has not provided any information to the respondents in spite of notice served.
Learned Chief Standing Counsel vehemently argued that since the newspaper has not provided any information and publication seems to be less than 25000, the accreditation has rightly been cancelled. He further stated that since the accreditation has been cancelled, the petitioner has got no right to retain the government accommodation. He also stated that that while filing earlier writ petition No.5115(M/B) of 2010, the petitioner had not raised ground with regard to mala fide.
We have heard and considered the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with regard to admission and interim relief.
There appears to be no dispute that DAVP had in the year 2008 taken note with regard to publication of newspapers which comes to 74252, a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure No.SA-2 to the supplementary affidavit.
Though it has been stated by the learned Chief Standing Counsel that the information relates to the advertisement but the fact is that the DAVP recorded the total publication to the tune of 74252 - may be for the purpose of granting advertisement.
From a perusal of the impugned order, it appears that no 4 information has been obtained from DAVP. The Registrar of the newspaper informed that they do not have record with regard to the number of newspapers published by the newspaper.
Attention of this Court has further been invited to a notice dated 2.1.2010 served upon the petitioner, in response to which he has sought certain information vide letter dated 4.1.2010 but instead of giving relevant information, by order dated 29.5.2010, the allotment was cancelled.
Apart from these facts, in case the submission of the petitioner's counsel that the accommodation allotted to him in the year 1994 was in his personal capacity is correct, then that aspect of the matter should also have been given due weight by the authorities while passing the impugned orders.
It has been stated by the learned Chief Standing Counsel that in the year 1994 when the accommodation was allotted, the petitioner was an accredited journalist and not entitled for allotment and he has got no right to retain the house but that argument will not make out a case to defend the impugned order keeping in view the facts and circumstances involved, more so after lapse of almost sixteen years, in violation of principle of natural justice.
There is one other aspect of the matter. Earlier, the State Accreditation Committee was vested with the power to grant or cancel the accreditation of the correspondents. Now, the power of cancellation by the impugned order (Annexure-5) has been delegated to the Director, Information. Whether such power may be permitted to be abused and whether it is just and proper on the part of the State Government to withdraw only the power of cancellation of accreditation from the Accreditation Committee and give it to an officer of the State Government also call for adjudication by this Court.
By catena of judgments, Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled that the State should not take any decision or pass order which may affect the rights of media to publish news item directly or indirectly. Admittedly, the Accreditation Committee contains the representatives of the newspapers as well as State Government. Power to grant accreditation has been kept with Accreditation Committee. Prima facie, there appears to be no justification to take the power of cancellation vested in the accreditation and delegate to an officer of the State Government, i.e. the Director, 5 Information who ordinarily may work at the dictate of the State Government keeping in view the moral and political devaluation in our system.
While filing affidavit, the State has not denied with regard to filing of the writ petition and involvement of the petitioner in the cases at Allahabad and Lucknow raising serious allegation of mis-conduct against Shri Vijai Shanker Pandey, the then Addl. Cabinet Secretary as well as the State Government in general. The fourth State, i.e. the media plays a very important role to galvanize the democratic set up. Without freedom of expression, whether it is by media or by individual citizen, the country may see doomsday.. The freedom of speech and expression includes within its compass the right of all citizens to read and be informed. Any Government Order or circular creating undue pressure on the media personnel is the anti thesis of rule of law. Since the power of Accreditation Committee to grant accreditation has not been taken away, the delegation of power to the Director, Information with regard to cancellation of accreditation, prima facie, seems to be arbitrary exercise of power by the State Government and may affect the peoples' right to know the correct facts through media (Indian Express Newspaper Bombay Limited versus Union of India AIR 1986 SC 515). Till the controversy is adjudicated by this Court, the Accreditation Committee should be permitted to function with all its powers available before passing of the impugned order (Anneuxre-5).
The arguments raised by the parties' counsel requires consideration and interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Prima facie, action taken against the petitioner and the newspaper seems to be activated by extraneous reasons and considerations.
Admit.
Let the parties exchange their affidavits. The respondents shall file an affidavit to place on record the number of accredited correspondents and total publication of respective newspapers and journals whom they represent and details of accommodation provided by the State along with their particulars.
List for peremptory hearing in the month of August, 2010. Operation of the impugned orders dated 29.5.2010 in writ petition No.5382(M/B) of 2010 as well as the order dated 24.12.2009 and 6 Government Order dated 23.6.2009 in writ petition No.5115(M/B) of 2010 shall remain stayed. Interim order dated 26.5.2009, passed in writ petition No.4729(M/B) of 2009 shall continue.
Order Date :- 14.6.2010 kkb/