IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. W.P. (C) 4497/2010 & CM No /2010 (for directions) & CM No.11352/2010 (for stay)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P. (C) 4497/2010 & CM No. 10452/2010 (for directions) & CM No.11352/2010 (for stay) SANJAY AGARWAL... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ananya Kumar and Mr. Chetan Chopra, Advocates versus REGISTRAR OF NEWSPAPERS FOR INDIA AND ORS... Respondents Through: Mr. Sunil Gupta and Mr. Vivek Tankha, Senior Advocates with Mr. Joydeep Mazumdar, Mr. S. Datta, Mr. D. Lahoti, Mr. T.A. Sarwal and Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocates for R-3. Mr. Mr. S.L. Shah, Assistant Press Registrar, Mr. A.K. Sharma, Section Officer, Mr. Narender Singh, Section Officer representing Respondent No.1 RNI. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR 1.Whether reporters of the local news papers be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? O R D E R 27.08.2010 No Yes Yes CM APPLs 10452 and 11352 of 2010 1. CM Application No. 10452 of 2010 has been filed by the original writ Petitioner Mr. Sanjay Agarwal seeking recall of the order dated 28 th July 2010 passed by this Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4497 of 2010 (along with CM Application Nos. 8918 of 2010 and 9292 of 2010) and for disposal of W.P. (C) No. 4497 of 2010 on merits. A further prayer is CM Appl Nos. 10452 and 11352 of 2010 in W.P. (C) No. 4497 of 2010 Page 1 of 25

to restrain the Respondent No. 3 M/s. D.B. Corp Limited or its agents from publishing the newspaper titled Dainik Bhaskar in Ranchi (Jharkhand) till the disposal of W.P. (C) 4497 of 2010. A third prayer for a direction to the Registrar of Newspapers for India ( RNI ), Respondent No. 1, to produce all the records/files pertaining to the verification of title/grant of certificate or registration in favour of Respondent No. 3 for publication of the newspaper titled Dainik Bhaskar from Ranchi. Since the application was based on the information posted on the website of the office of the RNI that a certificate of registration was granted by the RNI on 28 th July 2010 to Respondent No.3 in respect of the newspaper Dainik Bhaskar to be published in Ranchi a fourth prayer is that the said certificate of registration should be stayed. 2. The background to the present applications is that the above writ petition was filed by Mr.Sanjay Agarwal challenging the communication dated 30 th June 2010 issued by the RNI to the Sub Divisional Officer-incharge ( SDO ), Ranchi, Respondent No. 2, verifying the availability of the title Dainik Bhaskar applied for by Respondent No. 3. It stated that the said title is recognized under the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 ( PRB Act ). The writ petition also challenged an earlier verification dated 15 th February 2010 issued by the RNI stating the title Dainik Bhaskar was available in terms of the proviso to Section 6 of the PRB Act. The said letter dated 15 th February 2010 of the RNI permitted Respondent No. 2 to authenticate the declaration of the publisher/printer as required under Section 5 of the PRB Act. 3. One of the grounds of challenge by the Petitioner to the CM Appl Nos. 10452 and 11352 of 2010 in W.P. (C) No. 4497 of 2010 Page 2 of 25

aforementioned verification dated 15 th February 2010 and the subsequent communication dated 30 th June 2010 was that no such verification could have been issued by the RNI in terms of the proviso to Section 6 of the PRB Act without there first being a declaration made and subscribed by the publisher and printer in respect of the newspaper to be published from Ranchi and further without there being authorization in writing from the co-owner since the publisher/printer of the proposed newspaper was not its only owner. The Petitioner s case was that he was a co-owner in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dwarka Prasad Agarwal (D) By LRs v. B.D. Agarwal (2003) 6 SCC 230 read with a consequential order issued on 18 th June 2004 by the RNI by way of implementation of the said judgment. In other words, the Petitioner contended that the requirement of the co-owner having to give an authorization for the making of the declaration as mandated by Section 5 (2B) of the PRB Act was not complied with. The Petitioner also assailed the impugned orders/communication of the RNI as being violative of the proviso to Section 6 of the PRB Act. 4. When the writ petition was listed on 9 th July 2010 this Court directed notice to issue in the writ petition and in the CM No.8918 of 2010, it passed an interim order staying the communication dated 30 th June 2010 issued by the RNI. Later, Respondent No.3 filed an application, CM Application No. 9292 of 2010, seeking vacation of the stay. The writ petition along with the two applications CM No. 8918 of 2001 and CM No. 9292 of 2010 were heard together by this Court on 28 th July 2010. The order passed by this Court on that date reads as under: 1. The challenge by the Petitioner is to a communication CM Appl Nos. 10452 and 11352 of 2010 in W.P. (C) No. 4497 of 2010 Page 3 of 25

dated 30 th June 2010 issued by the Office of the Registrar of Newspapers for India ( RNI ) to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ranchi. 2. The background of the present petition is that the Petitioner is the son of Shri M.P. Agarwal who is one of the partners of M/s. Dwarka Prasad Agarwal & Brothers which firm owned the title Dainik Bhaskar and published newspapers under the said name at various locations in the country. The Petitioner claims to have been given the right to publish the newspaper and ownership of the title Dainik Bhaskar in the State of Uttar Pradesh. In 1992, disputes arose between the different branches of the family of Shri Dwarka Prasad Agarwal pertaining, inter alia, to the ownership of the title Dainik Bhaskar. By a judgment dated 7 th July 2003 of the Supreme Court in Dwarka Prasad Agarwal (D) By LRs v. B.D. Agarwal (2003) 6 SCC 230 the parties were relegated to the same position in which they were immediately prior to the passing of the order dated 26 th September 1992. 3. After the judgment of the Supreme Court the RNI wrote to the District Magistrates at Gwalior, Indore, Jhansi, Jabalpur, Bhopal giving the ownership status of Dainik Bhaskar immediately prior to 29 th June 1992. In terms thereof, the ownership of Dainik Bhaskar at Jhansi was with the Petitioner. 4. The Respondent No. 3 D.B. Corp. Limited made an application to the RNI, Ranchi in Jharkhand on 4 th February 2010 for availability of the title Dainik Bhaskar. It is stated that by a letter dated 15 th February 2010 the RNI confirmed the availability of the title Dainik Bhaskar at Ranchi. 5. The Petitioner states that on 13 th May 2010, he filed CM Appl Nos. 10452 and 11352 of 2010 in W.P. (C) No. 4497 of 2010 Page 4 of 25

objections under Section 12 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 ( PRB Act ) alleging that the application made by Respondent No. 3 for title verification was illegal as consent of the Petitioner who claimed himself to be a coowner of the title Dainik Bhaskar had not been sought. In terms of Section 5 (2B) of the PRB Act, the said representation appears to have been forwarded by Respondent No. 2 SDO, Ranchi to the RNI on 18 th May 2010. In response thereto, the RNI issued the impugned communication dated 30 th June 2010 to the Respondent No. 2, which reads as under: To The Sub Divisional Officer-in-charge Office of the Officer in Charge Sadar, Ranchi, Jharkhand Sub: Regarding the verification of title of Dainik Bhaskar Sir, Regarding the aforesaid subject, you have written to us information that M/s. D.B. Corp. Ltd., has submitted an application to your office for verification of title Dainik Bhaskar which was duly received vide your office letter No. 08 dated 4 th February 2010. As the said title Dainik Bhaskar is available under Section 6 of PRB Act, 1867, this title has been verified in Hindi language for publication on date 15 th February 2010 in the name of the said M/s. D.B. Corp. (P) Ltd. Whereas Shri Sanjay Agarwal publishes with identical title in Hindi form Jhansi (U.P) too. His objection is that, before approving the use of said title from Ranchi, before the verification of the said title, his prior permission must have been sought, whereas there is no such provision under PRP Act, 1967. The title is confirmed to its Applicant on the basis of priority by the RNI Office. Whereas this title was applied for, for the first time by M/s. D.B. Corporation, on the basis of availability, the said title was duly assigned to the Applicant. Therefore the said verified title Dainik Bhaskar in the name of M/s. D.B. Corp. P. Ltd. is recognized hereby under PRB Act 1867. CM Appl Nos. 10452 and 11352 of 2010 in W.P. (C) No. 4497 of 2010 Page 5 of 25

Forwarded to you for further proceedings in this regard. Yours truly --sd-- (Narendra Kaushal) Deputy (Press) Registration Office 6. Mr. Rajiv Nayar, learned Senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the procedure followed under Section 8B of the PRB Act by Respondent No. 2 was erroneous. There was no occasion to seek the comments of Respondent No. 2. Mr. Nayar submitted that the impugned communication dated 30 th June 2010 is ultra vires of the powers of the Press Registrar as the letter purported to pass a final order recognising the use of the title Dainik Bhaskar by Respondent No. 3. It is submitted that the jurisdiction to pass a final order was only with the Magistrate in terms of Section 5(2B) read with Section 6 of the PRB Act. 7. Dr. A.M. Singhvi, learned Senior counsel appearing for Respondent No. 3 raised an objection to the maintainability of the writ petition on the following grounds: (i) As of today, pursuant to the application made by the Respondent No.3 to the RNI at Ranchi on 4 th February 2010, no order has yet been passed under Section 6 of the PRB Act and, therefore, the writ petition is itself premature. (ii) In view of the fact that no order has been passed under Section 6 of the PRB Act as yet, the occasion to file objections under Section 8B PRB Act did not arise. (iii) Consequently, the impugned communication dated 30 th June 2010 from the RNI to the Sub- Divisional Officer, Ranchi is of no consequence because the need for seeking such information and providing such information has not arisen as yet. CM Appl Nos. 10452 and 11352 of 2010 in W.P. (C) No. 4497 of 2010 Page 6 of 25

(iv) It will be open to the Petitioner to seek such appropriate remedies as are provided under the PRB Act after the Magistrate has passed necessary orders under Section 6 of the PRB Act on the application of Respondent No. 3. 8. In view of the above submissions of Dr. Singhvi, this Court proceeds on the basis that as of today no order has been passed by the Magistrate under Section 6 of the PRB Act. Therefore, the occasion for the Petitioner to file objections under Section 8B and the consequent impugned communication dated 30 th June 2010 from the RNI to the SDO, Ranchi which is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition, did not arise and, is therefore, of no consequence. 9. It is clarified that as and when an order is passed by the Magistrate under Section 6 of the PRB Act, it will be open to the Petitioner, if aggrieved, to seek such appropriate remedies as are available to him in terms of the PRB Act. 10. The writ petition and the pending applications are disposed of in the above terms. 11. Next date, i.e. 26 th October 2010, stands cancelled. 5. On 5 th August 2010 the Petitioner filed the present application, CM No. 10452 of 2010, stating that a perusal of the website of the RNI showed that registration had been granted in respect of the title Dainik Bhaskar in favour of Respondent No. 3 on 28 th July 2010. From this the Petitioner inferred that the authentication of such declaration by Respondent No. 2 should have taken place a day earlier and consequently the statement made by the learned Senior counsel for Respondent No. 3 before this Court on 28 th July 2010 that no CM Appl Nos. 10452 and 11352 of 2010 in W.P. (C) No. 4497 of 2010 Page 7 of 25

authentication of any declaration in favour of Respondent No. 3 had been made till that date, was incorrect. It was accordingly prayed that the order dated 28 th July 2010 passed by this Court should be recalled. 6. When CM No. 10452 of 2010 was listed before this Court on 6 th August 2010 Mr. Sunil Gupta, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 3 on advance notice, maintained that no incorrect statement had been made to this Court on behalf of Respondent No.3 on 28 th July 2010. He further stated that the information posted on the website of the office of the RNI was a mistake and has since been withdrawn. This Court nevertheless required the RNI itself to confirm that no order under Section 6 of the PRB Act had yet been passed in the matter. Therefore, by the order dated 6 th August 2010, notice returnable 26 th August 2010 was issued to the RNI requesting that a senior officer be asked to remain present on that date with the relevant records. The order dated 6 th August 2010 further recorded in para 4 as under: 4. Mr. Gupta states that in view of the fact that no order has been passed under Section 6 of the PRB Act, the question of the Respondent taking further steps does not arise. 7. Thereafter on 20 th August 2010 the second application CM No. 11352 of 2010 was filed by the Petitioner. It was pointed out that the Petitioner had made a representation to Respondent No. 2 on 13 th May 2010 that in the event of the authentication being granted in respect of the declaration made by Respondent No.3, the Respondent No. 2 ought to exercise the power under Section 8B of the PRB Act to cancel such declaration. It was pointed out that notwithstanding the said representation Respondent CM Appl Nos. 10452 and 11352 of 2010 in W.P. (C) No. 4497 of 2010 Page 8 of 25

No. 2 had proceeded to authenticate the declaration filed by the Respondent No. 3 without dealing with the objections raised by the Petitioner. It was further pointed out that on 14 th August 2010 the Respondent No. 2 had written to the RNI, with a copy marked to the Petitioner, seeking guidance on the authentication of the declaration filed by the Respondent No. 3. It was stated by the Petitioner that without waiting for a response of the RNI to the said letter dated 14 th August 2010, the Respondent No. 2 again wrote to the RNI on 17 th August 2010 enclosing the authenticated declaration of Respondent No. 3. It was apprehended by the Petitioner that Respondent No. 3 would commence publication of the newspaper forthwith and in such a situation the Petitioner s remedy under Section 8B of the PRB Act would inefficacious and illusory. Accordingly, it was prayed that Respondent No. 3 be restrained from publishing Dainik Bhaskar from Ranchi till further orders. 8. In terms of the order dated 6 th August 2010 passed by this Court, the following officers of the RNI were present in Court on 26 th August 2010: (i) Mr. S.L. Shah, Assistant Press Registrar (ii) Mr. A.K. Sharma, Section Officer (iii) Mr. Narender Singh, Section Officer They confirmed that the publication on the website of the RNI of the details concerning the registration granted to Respondent No. 3 on 28 th July 2010 was a mistake and that such information has since been removed from the website. They further confirmed that no such CM Appl Nos. 10452 and 11352 of 2010 in W.P. (C) No. 4497 of 2010 Page 9 of 25

registration had been granted by the RNI in favour of the Respondent No. 3 since. 9. Mr. Rajiv Nayar, learned Senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner/applicant submitted that the Petitioner had been hoodwinked into believing that the procedure for verification in terms of the proviso to Section 6 PRB Act would be started afresh by the RNI by holding a proper enquiry as contemplated therein. He submitted that after a statement made by learned Senior counsel for the Respondent No. 3 before this Court on 28 th July 2010 it was clear that the communication dated 30 th June 2010 of the RNI was of no consequence. Consequently, there was no question of any authentication being granted by Respondent No. 2 of the declaration made by Respondent No.3 without the Press Registrar (RNI) commencing an enquiry de novo in terms of the proviso to Section 6 of the PRB Act. 10. Mr. Nayar submitted that the earlier verification dated 15 th February 2010 of the RNI had merged with its subsequent communication dated 30 th June 2010. Once it was conceded by Respondent No.3 before this Court on 28 th July 2010 that the communication dated 30 th June 2010 was of no consequence, then the earlier verification dated 15 th February 2010 of the RNI could not be relied upon by Respondent No. 2 to authenticate the declaration. He further submitted that in any event, with no declaration being filed by the Respondent No. 3 prior to the verification exercise undertaken by the RNI, and such declaration not being accompanied by an authority in writing from the co-owner for making and subscribing such declaration in terms of Section 5 (2B) of CM Appl Nos. 10452 and 11352 of 2010 in W.P. (C) No. 4497 of 2010 Page 10 of 25

the PRB Act, the authentication by Respondent No. 2 on 17 th August 2010 of the declaration by Respondent No.3 was vitiated. He pointed out that such authentication had been granted by Respondent No. 2 without even waiting for a response to the guidance sought by Respondent No. 2 from the RNI on 14 th August 2010. 11. Mr. Nayar submitted that undue haste displayed by Respondent No. 3 in commencing the publication of the Hindi newspaper Dainik Bhaskar in Ranchi within a day or two after the grant of authentication by Respondent No.2 showed that it was to overreach this Court and frustrate the proceedings by presenting the Court with a fait accompli. This was contrary to the assurance given to this Court by Mr.Sunil Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent No.3 on 6 th August 2010. He submitted that the action of Respondent No. 3 was an abuse of process of law and therefore, this Court should revive the writ petition for hearing on merits. It in any way involved the interpretation of Sections 5 (2B) and Section 6 of the PRB Act. He submitted that the remedy under Section 8B of the PRB Act was really pointless at this stage when the verification itself was vitiated. The proceedings under Section 8B PRB Act would not prevent the Respondent No. 3 from continuing to publish Dainik Bhaskar in Ranchi in the immediate future. 12. Appearing for Respondent No. 3 Mr. Sunil Gupta, learned Senior counsel, maintained that no incorrect statement was made to this Court on 28 th July 2010. According to him, the communication dated 30 th June 2010 from the RNI to the Respondent No. 2 was unnecessary as it was CM Appl Nos. 10452 and 11352 of 2010 in W.P. (C) No. 4497 of 2010 Page 11 of 25

beyond the powers of the RNI under the PRB Act. He submitted that the verification granted by the RNI on 15 th February 2010 held good. He submitted that as a matter of practice a declaration was filed by an applicant only after obtaining a verification from the RNI as to the availability of the title applied for. 13. Mr. Vivek Tankha, learned Senior counsel, supplemented the submissions of Mr. Gupta on behalf of Respondent No.3 and submitted that in terms of the proviso to Section 6 PRB Act where the newspaper proposed to be published and the newspaper which had an identical name published in the same language elsewhere was owned by the same person there was no need for an enquiry by the Press Registrar (RNI). Both the learned Senior counsel submitted that in terms of the proviso to Section 6, since Dainik Bhaskar was being published in Hindi by Respondent No. 3 in several cities all over the country except in Jhansi, there was no bar to the grant of authentication in its favour for the newspaper to be published in Ranchi. It is submitted that since the Respondent No. 3 was the owner of the newspaper to be published in Ranchi, there was no question of having to obtain the consent or authorization of any co-owner in terms of Section 5 (2B) of the PRB Act. Mr. Tankha added that unless the words owned by the same person occurring in proviso to Section 6 of the PRB Act are to be read as exclusively owned by the same person, even a co-owner could file a declaration in respect of a proposed newspaper. 14. Mr. Gupta vehemently pleaded that there was absolutely no illegality in the grant of authentication by RespondentNo.2 of the declaration by CM Appl Nos. 10452 and 11352 of 2010 in W.P. (C) No. 4497 of 2010 Page 12 of 25

Respondent No.3 since such authentication was granted subsequent to the order dated 6 th August 2010 passed by this Court. It was done on the basis of the earlier verification dated 15 th February 2010 issued by the RNI. The communication dated 14 th August 2010 addressed by Respondent No. 2 to the RNI seeking the latter s guidance was wholly unnecessary and was extra statutory. Realizing this mistake Respondent No. 2 on his own on 17 th August 2010 proceeded to authenticate the declaration. There was a remedy available to the Petitioner to challenge such authentication of the declaration by filing an opposition before Respondent No. 2 under Section 8B of the PRB Act. Such remedy had already been preserved by this Court in para 9 of its order dated 28 th July 2010. He submitted that it is only after the publication of the newspaper, for which there was a time limit prescribed under Section 5 (5) of the PRB Act, could an application be made by Respondent No.3 before the RNI for the grant of registration in terms of Section 19 C of the PRB Act. In the above circumstances, there was no need for this Court to recall its order dated 28 th July 2010. The Petitioner should be relegated to the remedy under Section 8B of the PRB Act. This Court could specify a time limit within which such opposition should be decided by Respondent No.2. No order should be passed restraining the Respondent No. 3 from continuing to publish Dainik Bhaskar in Hindi from Ranchi since over Rs. 7 crores had been invested by Respondent No.3 for the purpose. 15. This Court has considered the above submissions. The genesis of the present dispute lies in the communication dated 18 th June 2004 issued by the RNI by way of implementation of the judgment dated 7 th July 2003 CM Appl Nos. 10452 and 11352 of 2010 in W.P. (C) No. 4497 of 2010 Page 13 of 25

of the Supreme Court. That communication clearly states names of the owners of the title Dainik Bhaskar in different cities: S.No. Place of Publication Name of the Owner 1. Gwalior M/s. Bhaskar Publication & Allied Industry, Gwalior 2. Indore M/s. Bhaskar Graphic & Printing Arts Pvt.Ltd. Indore 3. Jhansi Shri Sanjay Agarwal 4. Jabalpur Shri H.D. Agarwal 5. Bhopal M/s. Writers & Publishers Limited, Bhopal 16. The above communication has been accepted and acted upon by the Petitioner as well as Respondent No.3, the two contesting parties to the present petition. Respondent No. 3 does not dispute that in terms of the above communication dated 18 th June 2004 of the RNI, the owner of Dainik Bhaskar in Jhansi is indeed the Petitioner. It is also not disputed that Dainik Bhaskar is being published by the Petitioner in Jhansi in Hindi. 17. Respondent No. 3, in its counter affidavit filed in the writ petition, has stated that it made an application to Respondent No.2 seeking availability of the title Dainik Bhaskar in Ranchi. The said application was forwarded on 4 th February 2010 by Respondent No. 2 to the RNI. On 15 th February 2010 the RNI wrote to the Respondent No. 2 inter alia stating as follows: It is verified on the basis of records, maintained in this office that the above title is available in terms of the proviso to Section 6 of the Press & Registration of Books CM Appl Nos. 10452 and 11352 of 2010 in W.P. (C) No. 4497 of 2010 Page 14 of 25

Act, 1867. You may, therefore, authenticate the declaration of the publisher/printer, required under Section 5 of the said Act and forward a copy bearing your seal and date thereof to this office for further action. 18. At this stage this Court would like to refer to the relevant portion of the Sections 5 as well as Section 6 of the PRB Act which read as under: 5. Rules as to publication of newspapers No newspaper shall be published in India, except in conformity with the rules hereinafter laid down: (1) Without prejudice to the provisions of Section 3, every copy of every such newspaper shall contain the names of the owner and editor thereof printed clearly on such copy and also the date of its publication. (2A) Every declaration under rule (2) shall specify the title of the newspaper, the language in which it is to be published and the periodicity of its publication and shall contain such other particulars as may be prescribed. (2B) Where the printer or publisher of a newspaper making a declaration under rule (2) is not the owner thereof, the declaration shall specify the name of the owner and shall also be accompanied by an authority in writing from the owner authorizing such person to make and subscribe such declaration. (2C) A declaration in respect of a newspaper made under rule (2) and authenticated under Section 6 shall be necessary before the newspaper can be published. 6. Authentication of declaration Each of the two originals of every declaration so made and subscribed as is aforesaid, shall be authenticated by the signature and official CM Appl Nos. 10452 and 11352 of 2010 in W.P. (C) No. 4497 of 2010 Page 15 of 25

seal of the Magistrate before whom the said declaration shall have been made. Provided that where any declaration is made and subscribed under Section 5 in respect of a newspaper, the declaration shall not, save in the case of newspapers, owned by the same person, be so authenticated unless the Magistrate [is, on inquiry from the Press Registrar, satisfied] that the newspaper proposed to be published does not bear a title which is the same as, or similar to, that of any other newspaper published either in the same language or in the same State. Deposit - One of the said originals shall be deposited among the records of the office of the Magistrate, and the other shall be deposited among the records of the High Court of Judicature, or [other principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction for the place where] the said declaration shall have been made. Inspection and supply of copies - The Officer-in-charge of each original shall allow any person to inspect that original on payment of a fee of one rupee, and shall give to any person applying a copy of the said declaration, attested by the seal of the court which has the custody of the original, on payment of a fee of two rupees. A copy of the declaration attested by the official seal of the Magistrate, or a copy of the order refusing to authenticate the declaration, shall be forwarded as soon as possible to the person making and subscribing the declaration and also to the Press Registrar. 19. The RNI should have in terms of the above provisions first enquired whether any declaration had been filed by the Respondent No. 3. In the present case it is stated in the counter affidavit of the Respondent No. 3 CM Appl Nos. 10452 and 11352 of 2010 in W.P. (C) No. 4497 of 2010 Page 16 of 25

that such declaration was filed only on 24 th May 2010. Mr. Gupta submitted that it was the normal practice to first seek information on availability of the title proposed for a new newspaper from the RNI even before filing a declaration, and that there was no rigidity to first filing a declaration followed by verification by the RNI. However, in the considered view of this Court, the enquiry by the RNI in terms of the proviso to Section 6 concerning the verification of availability of a title is not an empty formality. A declaration filed by an applicant, who is not the owner of the newspaper and seeks verification about the availability of a title, has to satisfy the requirement of Section 5 (2B) of the PRB Act. In other words, if the authority of the owner or the co-owner is not produced by the person making the declaration, it would be pointless for the RNI to undertake the exercise of verification of title. In the instant case the declaration was filed on 24 th May 2010 by one Mr. Sanjay Parashar who states that he is the printer/publisher of the newspaper Daink Bhaskar which is to be printed and published from Ranchi. Mr. Sanjay Parashar does not say that he is the owner of the newspaper. If Respondent No. 3 claims to be the owner then it should have authorised Mr. Parashar. This is not clear since for some reason a complete copy of declaration filed on 24 th May 2010 has not been enclosed in Annexure R-3/2 to the counter affidavit filed by Respondent No. 3. The crucial portion regarding ownership, which is clause 10 of the Form, has not been shown in the said Annexure. It is therefore not clear whether the declaration is in compliance with Section 5 (2B) of the PRB Act. Therefore, unless the declaration satisfies the requirement of Section 5 (2B) of the PRB Act an application for verification of title availability ought not to be forwarded to the RNI. CM Appl Nos. 10452 and 11352 of 2010 in W.P. (C) No. 4497 of 2010 Page 17 of 25

20. The second observation that this Court would like to make is that the proviso to Section 6 of the PRB Act dispenses with the need for authentication of the declaration only where the newspaper is proposed to be published and an existing newspaper of the same title is owned by the same person. To illustrate with reference to the present case, if Dainik Bhaskar was being published in Hindi anywhere in India (other than Ranchi) and newspaper published in such other place was also owned only by the Respondent No. 3, then there would be no need for authentication of the declaration. Admittedly, this is not the position here. Even according to Respondent No. 3, the Petitioner is the owner of the newspaper Dainik Bhaskar published in Hindi from Jhansi. Not only Respondent No. 3 but even the RNI, which issued the order dated 18 th June 2004, was aware of this fact. Therefore, clearly the requirement for an enquiry by the RNI was mandated by the second part of the proviso to Section 6 of the PRB Act. An enquiry by the RNI becomes necessary when the newspaper that is proposed to be published either has title which is the same as that of another newspaper published in the same language, which in this case is Hindi, or which has published in the same State. Therefore, even if there is no Dainik Bhaskar previously published in Ranchi, that will not obviate an enquiry by the RNI for the simple reason that Dainik Bhaskar in Hindi is being published under the ownership of a different person in Jhansi. Therefore, the inquiry by the RNI in terms of the proviso to Section 6 of the PRB Act was mandatory. CM Appl Nos. 10452 and 11352 of 2010 in W.P. (C) No. 4497 of 2010 Page 18 of 25

21. This Court is unable to accept the submission of Mr. Gupta that the verification granted on 15 th February 2010 by the RNI stood valid even after the statement made by learned Senior counsel for the Respondent No. 3 before this Court on 28 th July 2010 concerning the subsequent communication dated 30 th June 2010 of the RNI. The communication dated 30 th June 2010 refers to the earlier verification dated 15 th February 2010, which obviously was under challenge in the writ petition. With the earlier verification dated 15 th February 2010 having merged with the subsequent communication dated 30 th June 2010, and the subsequent communication dated 30 th June 2010 being treated as being of no consequence, there was no question of reviving the earlier verification dated 15 th February 2010. A de novo enquiry in terms of the proviso to Section 6 PRB Act had to be undertaken by the RNI. 22. Moreover this Court finds that the RNI has in the communication dated 15 th February 2010 mechanically repeated the words of the PRB Act in stating the above title Dainik Bhaskar is available in terms of the proviso to Section 6 of the PRB Act in its verification dated 15 th February 2010. It prima facie appears the RNI has given a go-by to the proviso to Section 6 of the PRB Act read with its order dated 18 th June 2004 where it recognized the Petitioner was the owner of the Dainik Bhaskar from Ranchi in Hindi. Where the newspaper is proposed to be published from Ranchi under title Dainik Bhaskar in Hindi, clearly the second part of the proviso to Section 6 was attracted. CM Appl Nos. 10452 and 11352 of 2010 in W.P. (C) No. 4497 of 2010 Page 19 of 25

23. The second aspect is that without eliciting information from the application seeking such verification of availability of title about the status of ownership of the newspaper proposed to be published, the Respondent No. 2, which is the authority supposed to authenticate the declaration, could not have decided whether the newspaper to be published, and newspaper under similar name published by the same person elsewhere, is owned by the same person. This had to be in the form of a declaration. At the time the earlier verification dated 15 th February 2010 was granted, there was no such declaration in terms of Section 5 (2B) of the PRB Act. 24. The order issued by the RNI granting verification in terms of the proviso to Section 6 has to be necessarily as a result of an enquiry during which the above aspects have to be mandatorily examined by the RNI. The order must reflect the materials considered by the RNI for being satisfied of the availability of the title. The order dated 15 th February 2010 does not prima facie reflect this aspect at all. It is not clear what was the material available with the RNI before it issued the verification dated 15 th February 2010. 25. It was earlier not thought necessary for this Court to examine this aspect further since a statement was made to this Court on 28 th July 2010 that the communication dated 30 th June 2010 of the RNI addressed to the Respondent No. 2 with which communication the earlier verification dated 15 th February 2010 had merged, was to be treated as of no CM Appl Nos. 10452 and 11352 of 2010 in W.P. (C) No. 4497 of 2010 Page 20 of 25

consequence. Since the Respondent No. 2 has proceeded to authenticate the declaration subsequently made by Respondent No. 3 on 24 th May 2010 by acting on the authentication of the RNI dated 15 th February 2010, it becomes necessary for this Court to now examine the validity of the verification dated 15 th February 2010. 26. It is necessary for the RNI to produce its records before this Court to satisfy the Court that it had relevant materials before it before granting the verification dated 15 th February 2010 and that it conducted an enquiry before granting such verification. 27. This Court is unable to accept the submission of Mr. Gupta, learned Senior counsel that since the remedy is available under Section 8B of the PRB Act and the Petitioner should be relegated to that remedy, this Court should not interfere at this stage. In terms of Section 8B the Petitioner can file an application before the Respondent No. 2 urging that the declaration which has been followed by the Respondent No. 2 in favour of Respondent No. 3 should be cancelled in terms of Section 8B (2)(ii) of the PRB Act. The fact remains that in the meanwhile Respondent No. 3 has proceeded to commence publication of the newspaper Dainik Bhaskar in Ranchi and even if a time bound direction is issued to the Respondent No. 2 to hear the proceedings, the prejudice that might be caused to the Petitioner by Respondent No. 3 continuing to publish Dainik Bhaskar from Ranchi may be irreversible. So the relegation of the Petitioner to the remedy under Section 8B of the PRB Act would not be equitable in the circumstances. CM Appl Nos. 10452 and 11352 of 2010 in W.P. (C) No. 4497 of 2010 Page 21 of 25

28. In that view of the matter, this Court directs that the order dated 28 th July 2010 passed by this Court in Writ Petition (Civil) 4497 of 2010 and CM Application Nos. 8918 of 2010, 9292 of 2010 will stand recalled. The Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4497 of 2010 is restored to its file and is revived for hearing, Consequently the interim order passed by this Court on 9 th July 2010, staying the communication dated 30 th June 2010 of the RNI is revived. Further, for the reasons explained hereinabove, the verification dated 15 th February 2010 of the RNI and the further actions taken by Respondent No. 2 on the basis of the said verification dated 15 th February 2010 of the RNI shall also remain stayed. 29. The question that next arises is the further interim order that should be passed in view of the subsequent developments. Mr. Gupta submitted that the Respondent No. 3 had already spent over Rs. 7 crores in publishing Dainik Bhaskar from Ranchi employing hundreds of workers and, therefore, it would be prejudiced by any order that stops it from continuing to publish the newspaper from Ranchi. This court finds that the grant of authentication by Respondent no. 2 on 17 th August 2010 of the declaration made by the Respondent No. 3 in terms of the proviso to Section 6 of the Act is prima facie untenable. For a large group like the Respondent No. 3, which is publishing newspapers all over India, it clearly took a risk in proceeding with publishing the newspaper in Ranchi since it knew fully well that the 2 nd part of proviso to Section 6 stood attracted with the Petitioner being the owner of a newspaper with the same title being published in Hindi in Jhansi. CM Appl Nos. 10452 and 11352 of 2010 in W.P. (C) No. 4497 of 2010 Page 22 of 25

30. Another aspect of the matter is that at two stages in the present litigation, on account of statements made or assurance given by learned Senior counsel appearing for Respondent No. 3, the interim order operating against it came to an end or were not passed. While there can be no doubt that learned Senior counsel were making those statements on instructions from Respondent No. 3, the manner in which the Respondent No. 3 has used the intervening period between 6 th and 26 th August 2010 to present the Court with a fait accompli, leaves much to be desired. There was no inkling, when Dr. Singhvi made the statement in this Court as recorded in the order dated 28 th July 2010, that the earlier verification dated 15 th February 2010 of the RNI was going to be acted upon. The obvious inference from the statement made was that the RNI s exercise would have to start de novo. Secondly, when the statement of Mr. Gupta was recorded by this Court on 6 th August 2010, there was again no inkling that de hors any fresh verification by the RNI, an authentication would be granted by Respondent No. 2 in ten days time. And within two days thereafter, the newspaper was published by Respondent No. 3 in Ranchi. Clearly there was an attempt to overreach the Court. This is yet another reason why Respondent No. 3 should be restrained from continuing to publish Dainik Bhaskar in Hindi from Ranchi till further orders in the writ petition. 31. Since the basis for the authentication granted to the Respondent No. 3 by the order dated 17 th August 2010 issued by the Respondent No. 2 is the verification dated 15 th February 2010 by the RNI, and since the CM Appl Nos. 10452 and 11352 of 2010 in W.P. (C) No. 4497 of 2010 Page 23 of 25

challenge to the verification has been revived by the present order, the balance of convenience in staying the order dated 17 th August 2010 passed by the Respondent No. 2 and restraining the Respondent No. 3 from continuing to publish Dainik Bhaskar from Ranchi title further orders, is in favour of the Petitioner. 32. Accordingly, it is directed that the order dated 17 th August 2010 passed by the Respondent No. 2 authenticating the declaration made by the Respondent no. 3 in terms of the proviso to Section 6 of the PRB Act and all further steps consequent thereto including the publication of Dainik Bhaskar in Ranchi by the Respondent No. 3 shall remain stayed till further orders. 33. It is clarified that the above findings on merits concerning the verification dated 15 th February 2010 and the communication dated 30 th June 2010 of the RNI are tentative, based on the pleadings and submissions at this stage. The final view, after pleadings are complete, will be taken independent of these prima facie findings. 34. CM Nos. 10452 and 11352 of 2010 are disposed of. W.P. (Civil) 4497 of 2010, CM APPs 8918 & 9292 of 2010 35. The subsequent developments as brought out in CM Application Nos. 10452 of 2010 and 11352 of 2010 are taken on record and will be treated as part of the pleadings in W.P. (Civil) 4497 of 2010. Respondent No. 3 is permitted to file, within three weeks, an additional affidavit as CM Appl Nos. 10452 and 11352 of 2010 in W.P. (C) No. 4497 of 2010 Page 24 of 25

regards the subsequent developments. As far as the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, fresh notice be issued to each of them. Each of them will file their respective reply affidavits within four weeks from the date of receipt of notice. The Respondent No. 1(RNI) will also produce, on the next date, the complete records of the case to explain the basis on which the verification dated 15 th February 2010 and the subsequent communication dated 30 th June 2010 was issued. 36. As already directed hereinbefore the impugned verification dated 15 th February 2010 and the communication dated 30 th June 2010 of the RNI and all actions taken consequent thereto shall remain stayed till further orders. 37. List on 25 th October 2010. 38. Order dasti under signatures of the Court Master. AUGUST 27, 2010 rk S. MURALIDHAR, J. CM Appl Nos. 10452 and 11352 of 2010 in W.P. (C) No. 4497 of 2010 Page 25 of 25