Page 1 of 4

HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA

AGARTALA

WP(C) No.959/2018

Daily Desher Katha Trust & another

----Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Tripura & others
----Respondent(s)

Connected with

I.A. No.01/2018 in WP(C) No.959/2018

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.R. Bhattacharjee, Sr. Advocate,

Mr. T.D. Majumder, Advocate,
Mr. J. Majumder, Advocate,
Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, Advocate.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, Advocate General,

Mr. N. Choudhury, G.A.

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AJAY RASTOGI

Order

10/10/2018

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-

newspaper, “Daily Desher Katha” had been registered way back

on 29.4.1980 with registration No.34238/1979 by the Registrar of

Newspapers for India and running its business and abiding law

since then.

At a given point of time, one complaint was made

questioning the declaration made by Samir Pal on 30.3.2015 and

in reference to which a case No.01/2018 was registered under the

Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 before the District

Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala. While the inquiry was pending

before the District Magistrate to avoid all legal hassles, the

petitioner submitted a fresh declaration on 01.10.2018 and in

furtherance thereof, a fresh registration certificate was issued by

 Page 2 of 4

the Government of India office of the Registrar of Newspapers for

India under the Act, 1867 dt.01.10.2018 (Annexure-3).

Indisputably, the later declaration and the consequential

registration dt.01.10.2018 is not the subject matter of

challenge/inquiry before the District Magistrate and in the course

of inquiry when the petitioner produced a declaration followed

with registration certificate dt.01.10.2018 issued by the

competent authority before the inquiry authority in the midst of its

order he called upon the SDM to conduct the further inquiry and to

furnish the details in reference to which a declaration and a

further registration has been obtained by the petitioner which

indisputably was not the subject matter of inquiry and finally while

cancelling a declaration made by Samir Pal dt.30.3.2015, a

stringent order has been passed directing the Press Registrar,

Office of the Registrar of Newspaper for India for taking further

action in terms of the order passed by him although the further

declaration and registration was not the subject matter of inquiry.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that although there is a

provision of appeal provided u/Sec.8C of the Act, 1867 but in the

present and given circumstances the declaration which has been

cancelled stands superseded by virtue of a subsequent declaration

dt.01.10.2018 and in furtherance to which a registration

certificate has been issued by the competent authority

dt.01.10.2018, according to him, the inquiry which was conducted

in reference to an earlier declaration dt.30.3.2015 became

infructuous but still after this fact was brought to notice the order

impugned passed by the authority is beyond its jurisdiction and

 Page 3 of 4

competence and holds no justification to make any adverse

observation in respect to a later declaration and registration

granted by the competent authority dt.01.10.2018 and this

according to him is the paramount reason and keeping in view the

right of freedom of speech and expression enjoyed by the press

protected u/Art.19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India may not be

permitted to be infringed without adopting the due process of law

Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the given

circumstances if indulgence is not extended by this court, the

petitioner will suffer irreparable loss and needs protection of this

court.

Advocate General has put in appearance on behalf of the

respondents and his submission is that the order impugned has

been passed by the District Magistrate u/Sec.8B of the Act, 1867

which is indisputably appealable u/Sec.8C of the Act before the

Press and Registration Appellate Board and it is not the case of

the petitioner that the Board is either not constituted or not

functional and since what being alleged are disputed question of

fact can be better looked into by the appellate Tribunal, who may

examine the grievance of the petitioner being under the ambit and

scope of section 8C of the Act, 1867 and in view of alternative

remedy available to the petitioner, this court may not like to

invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction u/Art.226 of the Constitution

of India.

After I have heard counsel for the parties, in my considered

view the matter deserves consideration.

Heard.
 Page 4 of 4

Admit.

Notice need not be issued since the State-respondents are

represented by counsel.

State may file their counter affidavit within four weeks with a

further rejoinder, if so advised, within two weeks thereafter.

In the meanwhile, the future effect and operation of the

order of the District Magistrate, West Tripura dt.01.10.2018

followed with the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate,

Sadar dt.01.10.2018 are hereby stayed. However, the

respondents will be at liberty to file application for vacation/

modification of the interim order after filing of the counter

affidavit.

Office to proceed.

CHIEF JUSTICE

Certificate:- All corrections made in the judgment/order

have been incorporated in the judgment/order.

Pulak