CWP 6994/07 Page 1 of 4 49 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Pronounced on: 02.02.2009 + W.P. (C) 6994/2007 VISHWAMBHAR NATH MISRA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Ranjit Sharma, Advocate. versus UOI & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Gaurav Duggal, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? S.RAVINDRA BHAT, J. (ORAL) % C.M. No. 1316/2009 (for Restoration) Issue Notice. Mr. Gaurav Duggal, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondents. After hearing counsel for the parties, the Court is of the opinion that the petitioner’s non-appearance has been sufficiently explained. The Application is allowed. Writ Petition is restored to the original position on the file of the Court. CWP 6994/07 Page 2 of 4 W.P. (C) 6994/2007 The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to take appropriate action according to the guidelines formulated for the purpose and issue special commemorative stamps honouring Late Shri Laxmi Narain Mishra. The petitioner is the son of Late Shri Laxmi Narain Mishra. It is contended that Late Shri Laxmi Narain Mishra was a freedom fighter, poet, social reformer, thinker and orator who was conferred with the Sahitya Vachasati and various others honours by Hindi Institutions of National fame and repute. The petitioner states that more than 50 Ph.D. theses have been approved so far on his life and works. The Sahitya Academy, Central Government has also published a monograph on him under the series ‘The Makers of Indian Literature’. 2. Petitioner refers to guidelines for issuance of special commemorative stamps, which deals 11 points and specifies what are the relevant considerations in that regard. Learned counsel particularly emphasizes on guideline No.4 which states that personalities on whom commemorative stamps may be issued should be of national or international importance. The occasion to be commemorated must be the birth centenary or 10th/25th/50th/100th death anniversary. It is alleged that Late Shri Laxmi Narain Mishra’s name was considered after relevant particulars were sought for. On 26.2.2005, the Central Minister declined the request on the recommendations of the Philatelic Advisory Committee. CWP 6994/07 Page 3 of 4 3. Learned counsel submitted that having regard to the undeniable fame and esteem in which Late Shri Laxmi Narain Mishra was held, the rejection of request for issuance of commemorative stamp in his memory smacks of arbitrariness. 4. It is contended that the guidelines which both contain the negative stipulations as well as the obligations to consider, for issuance of such stamps, clearly point to favourable recommendations in the case of the personalities such as Late Shri Laxmi Narain Mishra. 5. The petitioner’s grievance, evident from the above discussion is that correctness of the respondents’ decision in rejecting the request for issuance of commemorative stamp honouring Late Shri Laxmi Narain Mishra’s. The latter’s achievements undoubtedly may not be in dispute; they may be a matter of record. In that regard, his fame and honour accorded to him by inclusion of his works in the curricula itself might be a testimony of his eminence in the field. However, the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can hardly be expected to make to make a value judgment on the decision of a body such as Philatelic Advisory Committee which considers the request for issuance of stamps. Its might possible that several persons – eminent or well known in their field might fit the description of those with national or international repute. By itself that does not clothe any individual with the right to state that the respondent or the Department of Posts must issue a commemorative stamp in their honour. That falls within the domain of pure executive decision making; the Courts, in CWP 6994/07 Page 4 of 4 judicial review should not be considering such executive judgments. 6. Having considered the facts and the submissions, the Court is of the opinion that no cause for interference has been made out as the decision not to issue a stamp in this case evidently taken after due consideration of the application, cannot be termed as arbitrary, or illegal or whimsical. The Petition is accordingly dismissed. S. RAVINDRA BHAT (JUDGE) FEBRUARY 02, 2009 /vd/