Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a citizen and permanent resident of Jammu & Kashmir, applied to the District Magistrate, Jammu on 2 June 1970 for permission to start a weekly English newspaper. He submitted a list of 11 preferred titles, with 'Blitzkrieg' as his first preference. On 9 February 1971, he made a declaration under Section 5 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, and subsequently filed a second declaration on 23 April 1971 due to changes in publication day and printing press. The District Magistrate authenticated the declaration under Section 6. The first issue of the newspaper was published on 20 March 1971. In July 1971, the petitioner received a show cause notice dated 7 July 1971 alleging that his newspaper's title 'Blitzkrieg' was similar to 'Blitz', a newspaper published from Bombay, and asking him to respond by 8 August 1971. However, the District Magistrate cancelled the declaration by order dated 8 July 1971, just one day after issuing the notice, without giving any opportunity to show cause. The petitioner learned of the cancellation on 16 July 1971 through a notice served on the keeper of the printing press. He filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the cancellation as violative of his fundamental rights to carry on occupation, trade or business. The District Magistrate later claimed that the date 8 August 1971 in the show cause notice was a typing error and withdrew the notice on 8 November 1971, issuing a fresh notice on 9 November 1971. The Supreme Court held that Section 8B of the Act requires the magistrate to give notice, opportunity to show cause, and hold an enquiry before cancellation, and only on specified grounds such as contravention of the Act, similarity of title, cessation of printer/publisher, or false representation. The court found that the cancellation was hasty and without opportunity; the title 'Blitzkrieg' was not the same as or similar to 'Blitz'; and the fundamental right of the petitioner to carry on the occupation of editor and business of publishing a newspaper was infringed. Accordingly, the court quashed both the cancellation order dated 8 July 1971 and the subsequent show cause notice dated 9 November 1971, with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Fundamental Rights - Freedom of Trade and Occupation - Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 19(1)(g) and 32 - The cancellation of a newspaper declaration under Section 8B of Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 without notice and opportunity violated the petitioner's fundamental right to carry on the occupation of editor and business of publishing a newspaper - The court quashed the District Magistrate's order dated 8 July 1971 and held the cancellation illegal - Held that fundamental rights were infringed (Paras 970-972). B) Press and Registration of Books Act - Cancellation of Declaration - Grounds and Procedure under Section 8B - Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, Section 8B - Before cancellation, the Magistrate must give notice, opportunity to show cause, and hold an enquiry; grounds are limited to contravention of Act/rules, title same/similar to another newspaper in same language or State, printer/publisher ceased, or false representation/concealment - The District Magistrate cancelled without giving opportunity, and the alleged typing error indicated unseemly haste - Held the cancellation was wrongful and quashed (Paras 971-972). C) Press and Registration of Books Act - Authentication of Declaration - Effect of Authentication under Sections 5 and 6 - Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, Sections 5 and 6 - The petitioner had given 'Blitzkrieg' as first preference and the Magistrate authenticated the declaration; authentication is a prerequisite to publication - The Magistrate's later cancellation on ground of inadvertent clearance was not a statutory ground because 'Blitzkrieg' and 'Blitz' are totally different titles - Held the subsequent notice dated 9 November 1971 also quashed (Paras 971-972). D) Administrative Law - Natural Justice - Audi Alteram Partem - Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, Section 8B - The impugned order was passed with unseemly haste, one day after show cause notice, despite the notice providing time till 8 August 1971 - The court found the procedure in violation of natural justice and quashed both the cancellation order and the subsequent show cause notice - Held that the petitioner was denied opportunity to be heard (Paras 971-972).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order of District Magistrate cancelling the petitioner's declaration under Section 8B of Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 without giving notice and opportunity to show cause violates the petitioner's fundamental rights and is liable to be quashed; whether the title 'Blitzkrieg' is similar to 'Blitz' so as to justify cancellation; whether the subsequent notice dated 9 November 1971 should also be quashed
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The order of the District Magistrate dated 8 July 1971 cancelling the petitioner's declaration is quashed. The subsequent show cause notice dated 9 November 1971 is also quashed. There will be no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Before cancelling declaration under Section 8B of Press and Registration of Books Act
- 1867
- magistrate must give notice and opportunity to show cause and hold enquiry
- grounds for cancellation limited to those enumerated
- authentication under Section 6 is effectual
- cancellation without notice violates fundamental right to carry on occupation/trade/business
- title similarity must be actual same/similar
- Blitzkrieg and Blitz are different
