# Vidya Prakashan Mandir Ltd. and another v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2002) 2 ILRA 386
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2000-09-10
- **Case number:** Misc. Writ Petition No. 5014 of 2001
- **Bench:** S.R. Singh, Imtiyaz Murtaza
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vidya-prakashan-mandir-ltd-and-another-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-39885
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Copy right Act- section 62- petitioners
have not violated any of provisions of
copyright Act as the books published by
the petitioners are for the students of
class IX and X and these books were
published only according to the syllabus
prescribed by the Board and there is no
violation of any of the provisions of
copy-right Act-thus the impugned First
Information Report does not disclose
commission of any cognizable offence
against the petitioners and is liable to be
quashed. (Held in para 15).

The impugned F.I.R. registered as Case
Crime
No.
317/2001
police
Station
Transport Nagar, Meerut and further
proceedings
on
the
basis
of
the
impugned
first
information
report
against
the
petitioners
are
hereby
quashed. The Books seized by the
opposite parties shall be returned to the
petitioners forthwith.
Case Law referred
(1) AIR 1982 Calcutta 245

## Text

INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
386
entitled for that post, also cannot be
denied.

14. In view of the aforesaid
discussions, it appears that the action on
the part of the management for denying
the petitioner's right is neither fair nor
justified
nor
bonafide
nor
legally
acceptable and therefore, decision of
respondent
no.4
dated
10.9.2000
(annexure 6 to the writ petition) as
impugned in this petition deserves to be
quashed.

15. Accordingly, this petition
succeeds and is allowed. The impugned
order dated 10.9.2000 (annexure 6 to the
writ petition) is hereby quashed. The
respondent no. 4 is commanded to
implement the order of the District
Inspector of Schools dated 28.9.1998 and
permit the petitioner to join the post for
which she was selected.

Parties to bear their own costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.7.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.R. SINGH, J.
THE HON'BLE IMTIYAZ MURTAZA, J.

Misc. Writ Petition No. 5014 of 2001

Vidya Prakashan Mandir Limited and
another

 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Pushkar Mehrotra
Sri R.K. Jain

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Arvind Tewari
A.G.A.

Copy right Act- section 62- petitioners
have not violated any of provisions of
copyright Act as the books published by
the petitioners are for the students of
class IX and X and these books were
published only according to the syllabus
prescribed by the Board and there is no
violation of any of the provisions of
copy-right Act-thus the impugned First
Information Report does not disclose
commission of any cognizable offence
against the petitioners and is liable to be
quashed. (Held in para 15).

The impugned F.I.R. registered as Case
Crime
No.
317/2001
police
Station
Transport Nagar, Meerut and further
proceedings
on
the
basis
of
the
impugned
first
information
report
against
the
petitioners
are
hereby
quashed. The Books seized by the
opposite parties shall be returned to the
petitioners forthwith.
Case Law referred
(1) AIR 1982 Calcutta 245

(Delivered by Hon'ble Imtiyaz Murtaza, J.)

1. The present writ petition is
directed for quashing the F.I.R. registered
as case crime No.317/2001 Police station
Transport Nagar, Meerut against the
petitioners
by
District
Inspector
of
Schools, Meerut, respondent No. 2 under
sections 3,4, 7 and 8 of the Uttar Pradesh
Course Books Act 1978 and section 63 of
Copyright Act 1957.

2. According to the allegations of
the
First
Information
report
the
complainant had received information
from the District Magistrate, Meerut that
he had received complaint that M/s Vidya
Prakashan
Kendra
Ltd.
Meerut
is
publishing, books for which they have no
permission
from
the
Department.
Additional City Magistrate, Meerut had
2 All] Vidya Prakashan Mandir Ltd. and another Vs. State of U.P. and others
387
raided the godown of the publisher and
seized the following books:

1.
Sanskrit Parichayika-Class 9

2.
Sanskrit Parichayika-Class 10

3. Intermediate English Prose

4.
Intermediate English Poetry

5.
Rang Bharti

3. It is alleged that publication of
these books was unauthorized as they
were not allotted for publication of these
books and on the said allegations a report
was registered against the petitioners
under the aforesaid sections.

4. We have heard Sri R.K. Jain,
learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri
Arvind Tewari Government Advocate.

5. A perusal of the F.I.R. indicates
that the main allegations against the
petitioners are that they have violated the
provisions of section 3,4, 7 and 8 of U.P.
Course Books Act 1978 and section 63 of
Copyright Act. Sections 3,4,7 and 8 of
U.P. Course Books Act provides as
under:-

6. (3)
Dealer not to withhold
from sale or charge excess price

(1) No dealer shall-

(a) Withhold from sale any course
book held in stock by him,

(b) Charge for any course book a
price which exceeds its notified price

(2) No publisher shall, subsequent
to the commencement of this Act, use any
paper other than concessional rate paper
for the printing or publishing of textbook,

(a) Prescribed or recommended for
use in any class by the Board or by the
Department of Education, as the case may
be,

(b) Written
according
to
the
Syllabus in respect of the subject for
which the Board has not recommended or
approved any book:

Provided that nothing contained in
this sub-section shall be deemed to
require a publisher to use concessional
rate paper for the printing or publishing of
any book referred to above if concessional
rate paper cannot be made available to
him for any reason.

7. (4)
Requisition of stock of
course books-

(1) Where the prescribed Authority
has reason to believe that any dealer has
stored or continued to store or acquired
for storage, whether on his own account
or on account of or in partnership with,
any other person, any course books, the
Prescribed Authority may, by order,
require, him to sell at the notified price
the whole or a specified part of such stock
to the State Government or to such person
or class of persons and in such manner
and within such time as it may specify in
this behalf.

(2) Where any person against whom
an order is passed under sub-section (1),
fails to comply with it, the Prescribed
Authority may take, or cause to be taken
such stock of course books or part thereof,
as the case may be, in its custody, and
may deliver or cause to be delivered such
stock or part thereof to the State
Government or such person or class of
persons as may have been specified in the
order, and may cause to be paid to the
dealer the notified price thereof.

8. Power of State Government to
Notify prices of course Books- The State
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
388
Government may be notified orders fix
fair prices of course books specified or
referred to therein.

9. Penalties:- If any person
contravenes the provisions of Section 3,
he shall be punishable-

(i) in the case of contravention of
sub-section (1) of that section with
imprisonment for a term which may
extend to one year and shall also be liable
to fine, and

(ii) in the case of any other
contravention, with imprisonment for a
term which may extend to three years and
shall also be liable to fine.

10. A perusal of sections 3,4,7 and 8
of Uttar Pradesh Course Books Act 1978
shows that under section 8 violation of
section 3 has been made punishable and
sections 4 and 7 which are mentioned in
the F.I.R. are not Penal provisions. The
allegations in the F.I.R. against the
petitioners are that they had published
course books referred in the F.I.R.
without any authority and without any
permission from the Department. The
contention
of
the
counsel
for
the
petitioners is that no such authority or
sanction is required under the provisions
of Uttar Pradesh Course Books Act 1978.
The only restriction placed under section
3 of the Act is that no dealer shall with
hold the sale of any course books held in
stock by him or charge any course books
price which exceeds its notified price. A
perusal of the F.I.R. indicates that there is
no such allegation in the F.I.R. that
petitioners
are
charging
any
price
exceeding the price which is notified nor
there is any allegation that the course
books are printed on concessional rate
paper. The counsel for the petitioners has
rightly argued that the price of the course
books in question have not been notified
by the State Government under section 7
of the Act hence there can be no question
of violation of section 3 of the Act.
Similarly there is no allegation that
petitioners had with held the sale of any
course books in his stock. Learned
counsel has further argued that the
petitioners had not published any book on
concessional rate paper as mentioned in
the Act. Therefore the provisions of Uttar
Pradesh Course Books Act are not
applicable against the petitioners.

11. The learned counsel for the State
did not dispute that the petitioners were
not allotted any concessional rate paper
by
the
State
or
by
the
Central
Government. We are of the opinion that
the impugned First Information Report
does not state any violation of any of the
provisions of U.P. Course Book Act 1978.
The State Government had not notified
the price of the books under section 7 of
the Act. There is no allegation that
petitioners had withheld the sale of the
book or any concessional rate paper was
used for publishing the books. The
petitioners have thus not violated any of
the provisions of U.P. Course Act 1978.

12. The other allegation in the F.I.R.
is regarding violation of section 63 of
Copyright Act which reads as under:

63. Offence of infringement of
copyright of other rights conferred by this
Act.

Any person who knowingly infringes
or abets the infringement of -

(a) The copyright in a work or
2 All] Vidya Prakashan Mandir Ltd. and another Vs. State of U.P. and others
389

(b) any other right conferred by this
Act (except the right conferred by section
53-A),

shall
be
punishable
with
imprisonment for a term which shall not
be less than six months but which may
extend to three years and with fine which
shall not be less than fifty thousand
rupees but which may extend to two lacs
rupees:

Provided
that
(where
the
infringement has not been made for gain
in the course of trade or business) the
court may, for adequate and special
reasons to be mentioned in the judgment,
impose a sentence of imprisonment for a
term of less than six months or a fine of
less than fifty thousand rupees).

Explanation:
Construction
of
a
building or other structure which infringes
or which, if completed, would infringe the
copyright in some other work shall not be
an offence under this section.

13. As regards the violation of
section 63 of the Copyright Act the
contention of the petitioners counsel is
that course books published by the
petitioners are not "Government work"
within the meaning of section 2(k) of the
Act. The course books are published
according to the syllabi of the Department
of Education of Uttar Pradesh. The
Course Books Act, 1978 puts restriction
on printing of text books by recognized
publisher only with regard to the students
of class 1 to 8. These books are published
under the authority and control of the
Government and they are Government
Work within the meaning of section 2 (k)
of Copyright Act. Learned counsel for the
petitioners further submitted that the
petitioners had not published any book for
the students of class 1 to 8. The books
which are published by the petitioners are
according to the syllabi of the Department
and they are not published under the
authority or control of the Government.
The reliance was placed by learned
counsel for the petitioners in a case
reported in A.I.R. 1982 Calcutta 245
Nag Book House and another Vs. State
of West Bengal and others.

In this case it was observed "The
guidelines for the authors and publishers
of text books issued by the Board of
Secondary
Education,
West
Bengal
annexed as annexure 'A' to the petition
prescribing the syllabus cannot be taken
as original work being the product of
labour, skill and capital of some men
engaged by the Board. The syllabi merely
prescribing the guidelines which are to be
followed by the text books writers cannot
be termed as an original work having
some quality or character of its own
different from the raw material used.
Therefore, in my opinion, the syllabi that
has been prescribed by the Board being
not a product of labour, skill and capital
and not having an independent character
and quality of its own the question of any
copyright does not arise from this. The
submission of the learned Standing
Counsel that in accordance with the
syllabi the text books prepared by the
petitioners is an infringement of the
copyright is without any merit and hence
the same is over ruled."

14. We have considered the
submissions of the learned counsel for the
petitioners and in our opinion petitioners
have not violated any of provisions of
Copyright Act as the books published by
the petitioners are for the students of class
IX and X and these books were published
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
390
only according to the syllabus prescribed
by the Board and there is no violation of
any of the provisions of Copyright Act.
Thus the impugned First Information
Report does not disclose commission of
any cognizable offence against the
petitioners and is liable to be quashed.

15. In the result the writ petition is
allowed. The impugned F.I.R. registered
as Case Crime No.317/2001 police
Station Transport Nagar, Meerut and
further proceedings on the basis of the
impugned first information report against
the petitioners are hereby quashed. The
Books seized by the opposite parties shall
be returned to the petitioners forthwith.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD JULY 10, 2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.R. SINGH, J.
THE HON'BLE D.R. CHAUDHARY, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 54346 of 2000

Raja Ram Verma

...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India through Secretary and
others

...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S.P. Sharma
Sri Shiv Nath Singh
Sri G.K. Singh
Sri V.K. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Dinesh Kakkar
Sri S.N. Verma
Sri Yashwant Verma
S.C.

Constitution of India-Article 73- Policy
decisions
taken
by
the
Board
of
Governors
pursuant
to
the
various
decisions
of
the
Department
of
Education, Ministry of Human Resource
Development,
Government
of
India-
Directors of the Indian Institutes of the
country in their meeting held on 3.5.99
took a policy decision that the age of
superannuation of those officers- who
were to be superannuated on attaining
the age of 58 years would be 60 years
and that of the officers whose age of
retirement was initially 60 years under
the service rules would now be 62 years.
The
Government
orders
referred
to
hereinabove had the force of law by
virtue of Article 73 of the Constitution of
India.

(Held in para 7)

The Government decisions apply to the
Institute inasmuch as nothing in the Act
precludes the Board of Governors to take
policy decision to enhance the age of
retirement of the employees of the
Institute. I.I.T. Kanpur though is an
autonomous
body
is
under
the
administrative control of the Ministry of
Human
Resource
Development.
The
policy decision taken by the Board does
not appear to have been reversed in the
light
of
clarificatory
letter
dated
16.2.2000 issued by the Government of
India.
Case referred-

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.R. Singh, J.)

1. The petitioner who was appointed
Assistant Registrar, Indian Institute of
Technology,
Kanpur
(in
short
the
Institute) on 11.11.1983, has questioned
the legality of his superannuation at the
age of 60 years w.e.f. 31.12.2000 vide
impugned order dated July 17, 2000 (copy
of which has been annexed as annexure
no.11). A perusal of the impugned order
would show that the employees including
the petitioner, referred to therein, were
informed that they would be retiring from