IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2008 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 OP.No. 8815 of 2002(Y) ---------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- T.P.NANDAKUMAR, S/O.K.DAMODARAN NAIR, CHIEF EDITOR 'CRIME' AND MANAGING DIRECTOR MANOLOKAM GROUP PUBLISHING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED PUTHIARA ROAD, CALICUT-4. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.) SMT.SARITHA DAVID CHUNKATH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE REGISTRAR OF NEWSPAPERS FOR INDIA WEST BLOCK, WING NO.2, R.K.PURAM,NEW DELHI-110 066 2. THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE,KOLLAM. 3. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KOZHIKODE. 4. SRI.KANNUR RAJAN, EDITOR, PRINTER & PUBLISHER PALCO CRIME & PALCO CLAMOUR SAIYANA, THEVELEKKARA, QUILON DIST. 5. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING, NEW DELHI. ADDL.R6: THEKKUMBHAGOM MOHAN, S/O. N.S. GOPALA PILLAI, “SAIYANA”, THEVELEKKARA P.O. KOLLAM DIST. (IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT. 21.6.2002 ON CMP NO.26248/2002 IN O.P.8815/02) ADV. SRI.JOHN VARGHESE, ASSISTANT SG FOR R1,5 SRI.P.KURUVILLA JACOB FOR R4 SRI.MATHEW PAUL FOR R4 GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R2,3 SRI.S.R.AJITH, ADDL.CGSC FOR R1 & R5 SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR FOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M.R. SABU. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP.No. 8815 of 2002 ORDER ON C.M.P.NO.15715 OF 2002 IN O.P.NO.8815 OF 2002 CLOSED EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 5.10.2000 ISSUED BY THE DIST. COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD 2.2.2000 OF R3. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD 29.3.2000 ADDRESSED TO R3 BY R1. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD 1.9.2000 ADDRESSED TO THE PETITIONER BY R2. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD 8.3.2000 BY R1 TO R2. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT FILED BY R4 BEFORE R3. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION PRODUCED ALONG WITH THE EXT.P6 COUNTER. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.D1 62636/99 FROM THE DIST. COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE TO S.I. OF POLICE, KASBA. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE OPINION DTD 2.2.2000 OF THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, KOZHIKODE. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 23.3.2000 OF R2. EXT.P11: COPY OF ORDER DTD 20.10.2000 ISSUED BY R1. EXT.P12: COPY OF THE NOTES OF ARGUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R1. EXT.P13: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 15.3.2002 ISSUED BY R1. EXT.P14: COPY OF THE MAGAZINE, 'PALCO CRIME' DTD 15.7.2000 (COVER PAGE, PAGE NO.3 & PAGE NO.50) R1'S EXHIBIT: EXT.R1(a): COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.10.2000 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. R4'S EXHIBITS EXT.R4(a): COPY OF ORDER DATED 8.3.2002 OF R1 COMMUNICATED TO R4. EXT.R4(b): COPY OF R4'S REGISTERED STATEMENT/LETTER DTD 1.4.2000 FORWARDED TO R2. OP.No. 8815 of 2002 EXT.R4(c): COPY OF LETTER DATED 16.1.2002 OF R4'S COUNSEL FORWARDED TO R1 BY FAX. EXT.R4(d): COPY OF FAX MESSAGE DATED 17.1.2002 OF R1 COMMUNICATED TO R4'S COUNSEL. EXT.R4(e); COPY OF R4'S OBJECTION STATEMENT DATED 27.2.2002 COMMUNICATED TO R1. EXT.R4(r): COPY OF REGISTERED LETTER DTD 28.3.2000 OF R4 FORWARDED TO R1. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ O.P.No.8815 OF 2002 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of December, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner applied for registration of title for a fortnightly in malayalam by name 'PALCO CRIME' on 2.2.2000, under the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867. By letter dated, 2.2.2000, the same was forwarded to the 1st respondent for verification as to the availability of the title. According to the petitioner, one Sri. C. Chandra Mohan Pillai also applied for the same title on 15.2.2000. However, the same was rejected. The petitioner submits that the 4th respondent also filed an application for the same title on 1.3.2000. By Ext.P5 dated 8.3.2000, the 1st respondent informed the 2nd respondent that the said title is available in terms of the proviso to Section 6 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 and therefore, the 2nd respondent may authenticate the declaration of the publisher/printer as required under Section 3 of the said Act and forward the same to the 1st respondent. Against the same, the petitioner filed a petition before the 1st respondent. Since the 1st respondent did O.P.No.8815/02 2 not take any action on the same, the petitioner filed O.P.No.15433/2000, wherein this Court directed the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on the petition filed by the petitioner. It appears that the 4th respondent also filed O.P.No.31933/2000 in this regard. Pursuant to directions of this Court, the 1st respondent passed Ext.P13 order, wherein it has been stated that the title 'PALCO CRIME' was verified in favour of the 4th respondent on 25.2.2000. The petitioner is challenging that order in this original petition. 2. The petitioner's contention is that in Ext.P5 it is specifically stated that the 4th respondent's application is dated 1.3.2000 and therefore, it an impossibility that the same could have been verified on 25.2.2000. The petitioner further submits that even after registration of the title in favour of a person, appropriate declaration has to be made before the 2nd respondent, which has not been done so far, as is evident from the counter affidavit of the 2nd respondent, wherein it is categorically stated that no authentication has been issued from the 2nd respondent and therefore, the 4th respondent has no valid authenticated declaration to publish 'PALCO CRIME'. According to the petitioner, as is evident from Ext.R1(a) letter O.P.No.8815/02 3 dated, 20.10.2000 from the 1st respondent to the 2nd respondent, the 4th respondent has forged a certificate of registration in favour of the title 'PALCO CRIME' and the 1st respondent was requested to take appropriate action against the 4th respondent in that regard. The petitioner contends that in spite of the 1st respondent reporting a forgery to the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent has not taken any steps in that regard for eight long years. The petitioner, therefore, seeks the following reliefs: “a) To call for the records leading upto Exhibit P13 and quash the same by the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction. b) To issue a Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents 2 and 3 not to grant the declaration to the 4 th respondent solely based in Exhibit P13 order. c) To issue a Writ of Mandamus commanding respondents 2 and 3 to immediately stop the publication of Palco Crime as the same is not supported by the mandatory declaration in law and yet without such declaration the 4 th respondent is continuing with the publication Palco Crime. d) To issue a Writ of Mandamus commanding the Additional District Magistrate, Kozhikode to take such steps as are required to prosecute the 4 th respondent for the forgery committed by him. e) To issue a Writ of Mandamus commanding the first respondent to grant the title O.P.No.8815/02 4 Palco Crime to the petitioner pursuant to his application which is earlier in point of time in accordance with the relevant provisions”. 3. The 4th respondent, with the help of a counter affidavit filed, refutes the contentions of the petitioner. According to him, he had filed an earlier application before the 2nd respondent during the 3rd week of February 2000 to get clearance of title 'PALCO CRIME' and the registration number of that application was communicated to him through fax and it is on that application, the verification has been made on 25.2.2000. The 1st respondent has also filed a counter affidavit in which he has produced Ext.R1(a) communication to the 2nd respondent directing to take action against the 4th respondent for forgery. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. As I have stated, the specific contention of the petitioner is that as is evident from Ext.P5, the application of the 4th respondent for registration of the title 'PALCO CRIME' is dated 1.3.2000. In the impugned order, what is stated is that the title has been verified in the name of the 4th respondent on 25.2.2000. Although the 4th respondent would contend that he has made an application in the 3rd week of February 2000, O.P.No.8815/02 5 registration number of which has been communicated to him through fax, he has neither produced the application nor the fax alleged to have been received by him. He does not even state the exact date of his application except that it was in the 3rd week of February 2000. The 1st respondent also is unable to explain this discrepancy. Respondents 1 and 2, in their counter affidavit, do not say anywhere that an application has been received from the 4th respondent prior to 1.3.2000. Therefore, evidently, there is some mistake somewhere. Further when the 2nd respondent categorically states that no authentication has been issued from the office of the 2nd respondent in favour of the 4th respondent for declaration to publish 'PALCO CRIME', the 4th respondent could not have started publication with the title 'PALCO CRIME'. It is also a mystery as to why the 2nd respondent has not taken any action on Ext.R1(a), when the 1st respondent has categorically informed the 2nd respondent that the 4th respondent has forged a certificate of registration in favour of the title 'PALCO CRIME'. 6. In view of the above, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, Ext.P13 is quashed and the original petition is disposed of with the following directions: O.P.No.8815/02 6 The 1st respondent shall take a decision on the verification of the title 'PALCO CRIME' afresh, after hearing the petitioner, the 4th respondent and the 6th respondent. The same shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till final orders are thus passed, the 4th respondent shall not use the title 'PALCO CRIME' for any publication. Respondents 1 and 2 shall ensure that the 4th respondent does not publish any publication by the title 'PALCO CRIME'. The 2nd respondent is also directed to take appropriate action on Ext.R1(a) as expeditiously as possible. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd O.P.No.8815/02 7