GOPAL DASS SHARMA versus THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, JAMMU & ANR.

Citation: [1973] 2 S.C.R. 969 · Decided: 10-11-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Case Allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

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 authenti-
cated 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 en-
forcement 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 resi-
dent o,f the State of Jammu & Kashmir. On 2 June, 
1970 he 
made an application to the District Magistrate, Jammu for permis-
sion to start a weekly paper in English from Jammu. 
The peti-
tioner 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. print-
ing press. 
The District Magistrate, under section 6 of the Act. 
authenticated the declaration made by the petitioner. 
A decla-
ration 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 serv-
ed with a notice dated 7 July, 1971 asking him to show cause why 
the declaration dated 23 April, 1971 might not be cancelled inas-
much as the petitioner's title of the weekly newspaper Blitzkrieg 
was similar to that of Blitz -published from Bombay. 
The peti-
tioner 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 
P
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.