# GOPAL DASS SHARMA v. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, JAMMU & ANR

- **Citation:** [1973] 2 S.C.R. 969
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1972-11-10
- **Case number:** Writ Petition No. 270 of 1972
- **Bench:** S. M. S!Kri, A. N. Ray, D. G. Palekar, M. H. Beg, S. N. Dwivedi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/gopal-dass-sharma-v-the-district-magistrate-jammu-anr-5929
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Press and Registration of Books Act (25 of 1867) ss. 6 and BB-Scope
vf-Cancellatiqn of declamtion if violates fundamental right of carrying
011 business.
Before a magistrate cancels a dedaration under s. SB of tire Press and
Registration of Books Ac~ 1867, he has to give a notice and opportunity
to the person concerned to show cause against the action proposed and
hold .an enquiry, If be is thereafter satisfied that (a) th,e newsraper is
published in contravention of the provisions of the Act or rules made
thereunder, or (b) the •ewspaper bears a title which is the same as, or
.rimllar to, that of a•y other •ewspaper either in the same language· or in
the same State, or (c) the printer or publisher bas ceased to be its printer
or publisher, or (d) the declaration was made 1 on false representation or
concealment of any material fact, he may cancel ·the declaration. [971 C-Fl
In the present case, the petitioner gave the title 'Blitzkr~g· as his first
preference for ·~e title of his newspaper and the magistrate authenticated the declaration as required by s. 6 of the Act. Thereafter, the magis·
Irate cancelled the declaration on the ground that the title is the same as
that of 'Blitz' without giving any opportunity to the petitioner.
In a petition under Art. 32,
HELD : (1) The order of cancellation should be quashed .. [972 BJ
(a) It violated the petitioner';
fundamental right• to carry on the
occupation of editor and the business of publishing a newspaper. !972 A-BJ
(b) The order was passed with unseemly haste without giving any
opportunity to the petitioner. [971 HJ
F
(2) The Second noti<:e given to the petitioner during th,e pendency
of the writ proceedings should also be quashed as the titles 'Blitzkrieg' and
'Blitz' are totally ilifferent titles and there is no ground for canoellatlon ·
df the declaration. [971 G-H; 972 B-C]
G
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 270 of 1972.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for the enforcement of fundamental rights.
Petitioner appeared (n person.
R. N. Sachthey for the respondents.
H
The JudR1I1ent of the Court was delivered by
RAY, J.-This writ petition is directed against an order dated
8 July, 1971 made by the District Magistrate, Jammu.
970
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1973] 2 S.C.R.
The Distriot Magistrate by the said order under section 8B(ii).
A
of the Press & Registra.(ion of Books Act 1867, referred ~o as the
Act, cancelled the petitioner's declaration dated 23 Apnl, 1971.
The petitioner is a citizen of India: "He is a pei;manent resident o,f the State of Jammu & Kashmir. On 2 June,
1970 he
made an application to the District Magistrate, Jammu for permission to start a weekly paper in English from Jammu.
The petitioner in accordance with the rules under the Act gave a list of
11 names in order of preference.
The first preference given by
the petitioner was "Blitzkrieg".
The petitioner on 9 February, 1971 mad~ a declaration under
section 5 of the Act giving particulars of the newspaper, the title
of the newspaper, the language in which it was to be published as
also the periodicity of the publication.
A second
declaration
was given by the. petitioner on 23
April,
1971.
The second
declaration was necessitated because of two changes.
One was
as regards the day of publication.
It was shifted from Saturday
10 Tuesday.
The other was with regard to the name of the. printing press.
The District Magistrate, under section 6 of the Act.
authenticated the declaration made by the petitioner.
A declaration made under rules laid down in section 5. and authenticated
under section 6 shall be necessary before the newspaper can be
published.
The first issue of the petitioner's weekly paper was published
un 20 March, 1971.
Some time in the month of July 1971 the petitioner was served with a notice dated 7 July, 1971 asking him to show cause why
the declaration dated 23 April, 1971 might not be cancelled inasmuch as the petitioner's title of the weekly newspaper Blitzkrieg
was similar to

## Text

A
B
c
D
E
969
GOPAL DASS SHARMA
v.
THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, JAMMU & ANR.
November 10, 1972
[S. M. S!KRI, C.J., A. N. RAY, D. G. PALEKAR, M. H. BEG AND
S. N. DWIVEDI, JJ.]
Press and Registration of Books Act (25 of 1867) ss. 6 and BB-Scope
vf-Cancellatiqn of declamtion if violates fundamental right of carrying
011 business.
Before a magistrate cancels a dedaration under s. SB of tire Press and
Registration of Books Ac~ 1867, he has to give a notice and opportunity
to the person concerned to show cause against the action proposed and
hold .an enquiry, If be is thereafter satisfied that (a) th,e newsraper is
published in contravention of the provisions of the Act or rules made
thereunder, or (b) the •ewspaper bears a title which is the same as, or
.rimllar to, that of a•y other •ewspaper either in the same language· or in
the same State, or (c) the printer or publisher bas ceased to be its printer
or publisher, or (d) the declaration was made 1 on false representation or
concealment of any material fact, he may cancel ·the declaration. [971 C-Fl
In the present case, the petitioner gave the title 'Blitzkr~g· as his first
preference for ·~e title of his newspaper and the magistrate authenticated the declaration as required by s. 6 of the Act. Thereafter, the magis·
Irate cancelled the declaration on the ground that the title is the same as
that of 'Blitz' without giving any opportunity to the petitioner.
In a petition under Art. 32,
HELD : (1) The order of cancellation should be quashed .. [972 BJ
(a) It violated the petitioner';
fundamental right• to carry on the
occupation of editor and the business of publishing a newspaper. !972 A-BJ
(b) The order was passed with unseemly haste without giving any
opportunity to the petitioner. [971 HJ
F
(2) The Second noti<:e given to the petitioner during th,e pendency
of the writ proceedings should also be quashed as the titles 'Blitzkrieg' and
'Blitz' are totally ilifferent titles and there is no ground for canoellatlon ·
df the declaration. [971 G-H; 972 B-C]
G
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 270 of 1972.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for the enforcement of fundamental rights.
Petitioner appeared (n person.
R. N. Sachthey for the respondents.
H
The JudR1I1ent of the Court was delivered by
RAY, J.-This writ petition is directed against an order dated
8 July, 1971 made by the District Magistrate, Jammu.
970
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1973] 2 S.C.R.
The Distriot Magistrate by the said order under section 8B(ii).
A
of the Press & Registra.(ion of Books Act 1867, referred ~o as the
Act, cancelled the petitioner's declaration dated 23 Apnl, 1971.
The petitioner is a citizen of India: "He is a pei;manent resident o,f the State of Jammu & Kashmir. On 2 June,
1970 he
made an application to the District Magistrate, Jammu for permission to start a weekly paper in English from Jammu.
The petitioner in accordance with the rules under the Act gave a list of
11 names in order of preference.
The first preference given by
the petitioner was "Blitzkrieg".
The petitioner on 9 February, 1971 mad~ a declaration under
section 5 of the Act giving particulars of the newspaper, the title
of the newspaper, the language in which it was to be published as
also the periodicity of the publication.
A second
declaration
was given by the. petitioner on 23
April,
1971.
The second
declaration was necessitated because of two changes.
One was
as regards the day of publication.
It was shifted from Saturday
10 Tuesday.
The other was with regard to the name of the. printing press.
The District Magistrate, under section 6 of the Act.
authenticated the declaration made by the petitioner.
A declaration made under rules laid down in section 5. and authenticated
under section 6 shall be necessary before the newspaper can be
published.
The first issue of the petitioner's weekly paper was published
un 20 March, 1971.
Some time in the month of July 1971 the petitioner was served with a notice dated 7 July, 1971 asking him to show cause why
the declaration dated 23 April, 1971 might not be cancelled inasmuch as the petitioner's title of the weekly newspaper Blitzkrieg
was similar to that of Blitz -published from Bombay.
The petitioner was asked to show cause by 8 August, 1971.
The petitioner came to know on 16 July 1971
from the
notice dated 13 July, 1971 served upon the Keeper of the Printing
Press where the ·petitioner printed the issue of his paper that the
declaration of the petitioner for 'Blitzkrieg' had been cancelled
by the Distcict Magistrate, Jammu by an order dated 8 July,
1971.
'
The petitioner alleges the District
Magistrate's
displeasure
with the petitioner.
Though :the District Magistrate in the notio~
dated 7 July, 1971 gave the petitioner one month's time till 8
August, 1971 to show cause, yet the District Magi~trate cancelled
the petitioner's declaration on ~ July, 1971.
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
c
D
E
F
G
H
G. D. SHARMA v. DIST. MAGISTRATE (Ray, J.)
971
The petitioner challenges the validity of the order.
The petitioner alleges the order to be violative of his fundamental rights
to carry on occupation, trade or blusiness.
The District Magistrate in his allidavit alleged tlfat in the
notice dated 7 July 1971 the date 8 August, 1971 was a typing
error. Therefore, ~ an order dated 8
November
1971
the
notice was withdrawn and a fresh notice was served on the petitioner to show cause by 20 November. 1971 as to why his declaration should not be cancelled.
The petitioner obtained a rule on 2 August,
1971. It
~s
apparent that the District Magistrati: took tlie. steps after the pelltioner had exposed the wrongful and iJlegaJ acts.
·
The cancellation of the declaration is made under section
8B of the Act.
The Magistrate is to give a notice to the person
concerned.
An opportunity. is to be given to show cause against
the action proposed. An enquiry is to be held. An opportunity
is to be giv_51n .to the person concerned to being hear.ct. If the
Magistrate is thereafter satisfied that (a) the newspaper. is published in contravention of the provisions of the Act or rules ma.de
thereunder, or ( b) the newspaper mentioned in the declaration
bears a title whiCh is the same as, or similar to, that of any other
newspaper published either in the same lanjl,uage or in the same
State, or ( c) the printer or publisher has ceased to be the printer
or publisher of the newspaper mentioned in· such declaration, or
( d) 'lhe decla~ation was made on false representation or on the
coneealment of any material fact or in respect of
i1 periodical
work which is not a newspaper, the Magistrate may, by order,
cancel the declaration.
In the present case the respondents justify the cancellation
on the ground that the title of Blitzkrieg is t!ie same as that of
Blitz. In the affidavit t~ District Magistrate stated that the title
of Bliltzkrieg "had been inadvertently cleared in favour of' the
petitioner.
That is not a ground for cancellation of declaration.
The petitioner !!ave th·~ tit17 Blitzkrieg as the first in order of preference. 11 lltles were given.
The Magistrate
authenticated
the petitiqner.'.s declaration in. respect of the title Blitzkrieg.
The
newspaper Bhtz cannot be said to be either a recent publication
or to be unknown.
The petitioner contended
that Blitz and
Blitzkrieg were different titles.
So they are.
. The ca_nceUation was ."!'rongful.
It was hasty.
No opportumty wa~ given to the pel!!Ioner.
The explanation of a typing
err?r with repai:d to th: date indicates the unseemly haste with
which the D1stnct Magistrate took action against the petitioner.
972
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1973] 2 S.C.R,
le was said on behalf of the respomfonts that the petitioner
had a right of 11-ppeal under section 8C of the Act.
1t is also said
that no fundamell'tal right of the petitioner was infringed by the
cancellation.
The petitioner's fundamental right to carry on the
occupation of editor of newspaper as well as business of publishing a newspaper is infringed by the illegal act.
The order of the District Magistrate dated 8 July 1971 cancelling the petitioner's declaration is quashed.
We have taken
notice of the subsequent event during the pendency of this rule
when the Distriet Magistrate issued another notice dated 9 November, 1971 asking the petitfoner to show cause why the declaration
should not be cancelled.
That notice dated 9 November, 1971
is ·also qqashed.
There will be no order as to costs.
V.P.S.
Petition allowed.
A
c