Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010195442024 2025:GAU-AS:8467 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4997/2024 AGRADOOT PUBLISHERS PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT AGRADOOT BHAWAN, KAHILIPARA ROAD, GUWAHATI, DIST. KAMRUP (METRO), PIN- 781006, REPRESENTED BYONE OF ITS DIRECTORS, SRI PRANJAL SEN DEKA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, SON OF SRI KANAK SEN DEKA, R/O HOUSE NO. 301, AGRADOOT BHAWAN, KAHILIPARA ROAD, GUWAHATI, P.O. SECRETARIAT, P.S. DISPUR, DIST. KAMRUP (METRO), ASSAM, PIN-781006. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM,INFORMATION AND PUBLIC RELATION DEPARTMENT DISPUR, GUWAHATI, PIN- 781006 2:THE DIRECTORATE OF INFORMATION AND PUBLIC RELATIONS DISPUR GUWAHATI PIN-781006 3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI PIN- 78100 Page No.# 2/8 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K N CHOUDHURY, N GAUTAM,MS N MAHANTA Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, FINANCE BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER 23-06-2025 1. Heard Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. T. Kashyap, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. R. Baruah, learned State counsel for the respondent No.2. Also heard Mr. R. Borpujari, learned Standing counsel, Finance Department for the respondent No.3. 2. The petitioner herein is a Private Limited Company, which owns and publishes ‘Dainik Agradoot’, an Assamese daily newspaper, published simultaneously from Guwahati and Jorhat and circulated to other North Eastern States. 3. The petitioner company is aggrieved by non-implementation of the Advertisement Policy of the State published on 21.08.1986. It is the case of the petitioner company that though the Newspaper, as aforesaid is recognized and though, it is entitled for benefit under the Advertisement Policy of the State, however, over the years, including the current Financial Year, the respondent No. 2, has significantly reduced the allocation of the advertisement to the petitioner company while giving more benefits to other newspapers having lesser circulation and accordingly, the present writ petition is filed. 4. Mr. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel referring to the determination made by a Co-ordinate Bench in M/s Omega Printers Pvt. Ltd. and others Vs. State of Assam and Others reported in 1994 2 GLR 15, contends that the Government while entering into contracts or issuing quotas, is not expected to act like a private individual, but should Page No.# 3/8 act in conformity with policy. However, the respondent No. 2 has violated the norms of such policy, which resulted in violation of the petitioner’s right under Articles 14 and 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of India. 5. Referring to the circulations projected by the petitioner company and presented in tabular form, Mr. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel, contends that though the petitioner company is having much more circulations, however, over the years, other newspapers, which are having less circulations, as reflected in the tables, annexed to the additional affidavit, filed by the petitioner company, are given benefit in terms of publication of much Government advertisements than that were published in the newspaper of the petitioner company. Therefore, a direction should be issued to publish Government advertisement, in terms of Government Policy and not to deprive of the petitioner company. 6. The respondent State has filed an affidavit-in-opposition and has taken a stand that in terms of Advertisement Policy of the State, more particularly, under Clause 7(i), the Government advertisements shall not be construed as any measure or part thereof for financial assistance or grant-in-aid and does not confer any right to the Government advertisements. As per such Policy, publication of the government advertisement is subject to budgetary provision and other criteria, such as that, there must be widest possible coverage. The circulation of newspapers among the readers and viewers, in the areas, intended to be covered, will be given preference, so as to ensure maximum reach, as per Sub-Clauses (a) & (b) of Clause-7 of the Advertisement Policy of the State. Therefore, according to the respondents, only the number of circulation is not the sole criteria, rather other criteria, like maximum reach as per Sub-Clauses (a) & (b) of Clause- 7 of the Advertisement Policy for allotment of Government advertisement are also having important. 7. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by the parties. 8. After elaborately dealing with different judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Page No.# 4/8 this regard, the Co-ordinate Bench in Omega Printers Pvt. Ltd. (supra), laid down the followings proposition at paragraph 22:- “22. From the ratio of the above decisions it is abundantly clear that the State cannot impose unreasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression be that by putting heavy burden on the paper by imposing taxes or by withholding advertisement or the facilities for concessional rate in tax and purchase of newsprints; because if it is done it will amount to put pressure on the paper. particularly on its financial aspect, thereby either the paper will be forced to raise the price, which ultimately reduce the circulation and thereby compel to close down the newspaper, or force it to seek governmental assistance in order to thrive and thereby yield to the pressure of the Government.” 9. There is no doubt in the mind of this Court that the aforesaid proposition should also be applicable in the present case. It is also of the opinion of this Court that there shall not be any vested right on the newspaper to have Government advertisement and the State will be within its discretion to allot the advertisement, as per their budgetary provisions, however, when such advertisements are allotted, the same should be in conformity with the policy prescribing the manner & method and criteria of allotting such advertisement to different newspapers. The State will be under its bounden duty to follow such policy, when it decides to allot advertisement within the budgetary provision, inasmuch as, this Court is of the opinion that such policy itself is a guideline to avoid discrimination and arbitrary action in this regard. 10. Coming to the pleadings as regards circulation & distributions in tabular form, the same are quoted herein below:- DIPR Ads distribution total sq.cm from 2024 1 st October to 15 th March 2025 Page No.# 5/8 Sl No Paper name Oct-24 Nov-24 Dec-24 Jan-25 Feb-25 Mar-25 All total 1 Niyomiya Barta 74012 72867 123407 61911 51888 50187 434272 2 Dainik Janambhumi 66955 72249 116092 63899 46132 55255 420582 3 Asomiya Pratidin 70624 68421 107793 65100 50657 56648 419243 4 Aamar Asom 60677 75735 122593 51771 50232 54423 415431 5 Asomiya Khabar 60026 50470 74546 39135 34573 36878 295628 6 Dainik Agradoot 37449 41907 57256 35690 23849 33175 229326 DIPR Ads distribution total sq.cm from 1 st October to 31 st October 2024 Sl No. Paper name B/W Colour All total 1 Niyomiya Barta 47287 26725 74012 2 Dainik Janambhumi 35676 31279 66955 3 Asomiya Pratidin 43923 26701 70624 4 Aamar Asom 30232 30445 60677 5 Asomiya Khabar 33993 26033 60026 6 Dainik Agradoot 17828 19621 37449 DIPR Ads distribution total sq.cm from 1 st November to 30 th November 2024 Sl No. Paper name B/W Colour All total Page No.# 6/8 1 Niyomiya Barta 52666 20201 72867 2 Dainik Janambhumi 46116 26133 72249 3 Asomiya Pratidin 42974 25447 68421 4 Aamar Asom 52695 23040 75735 5 Asomiya Khabar 32635 17835 50470 6 Dainik Agradoot 30124 11783 41907 DIPR Ads distribution total sq.cm from 1 st December to 31 st December 2024 Sl No. Paper name B/W Colour All total 1 Niyomiya Barta 73954 49453 123407 2 Dainik Janambhumi 73348 42744 116092 3 Asomiya Pratidin 85033 22760 107793 4 Aamar Asom 78084 44509 122593 5 Asomiya Khabar 39661 34885 74546 6 Dainik Agradoot 29552 27704 57256 DIPR Ads distribution total sq.cm from 1 st January 2025 Sl No. Paper name B/W Colour All total 1 Niyomiya Barta 43439 18472 61911 2 Dainik Janambhumi 41636 22263 63899 3 Asomiya Pratidin 54102 10998 65100 4 Aamar Asom 30567 21204 51771 5 Asomiya Khabar 27651 11484 39135 6 Dainik Agradoot 26770 8920 35690 Page No.# 7/8 DIPR Ads distribution total sq.cm from 1 st February to 28 th February 2025 Sl No. Paper name B/W Colour All total 1 Niyomiya Barta 29336 22552 51888 2 Dainik Janambhumi 26189 19943 46132 3 Asomiya Pratidin 36064 14593 50657 4 Aamar Asom 28334 21898 50232 5 Asomiya Khabar 20589 13984 34573 6 Dainik Agradoot 12724 11125 23849 DIPR Ads distribution total sq.cm from 1 st March to 15 th March 2025 Sl No. Paper name B/W Colour All total 1 Niyomiya Barta 37462 12725 50187 2 Dainik Janambhumi 42442 12813 55255 3 Asomiya Pratidin 48848 7800 56648 4 Aamar Asom 43323 11100 54423 5 Asomiya Khabar 28653 8225 36878 6 Dainik Agradoot 29315 3860 33175 11. The aforesaid projection, may not be conclusively determined by this Court in exercise of its power of judicial review in the present proceeding, however, it will be a duty of the State to follow the existing norms and/or Policy while allotting advertisement and to take note of the grievance of the petitioner. If the State allots advertisement in violation of its own Policy, the same may amount to violation of the right of the petitioner Page No.# 8/8 under Articles 14 & 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India inasmuch as, the Co-ordinate Bench in Omega Printers and Publishers (supra) held that the advertisement is to be issued adequately at par with the similar newspapers having similar circulation. 12. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of directing the authorities to consider the case of the allotment of advertisement to the petitioner company along with equally placed newspaper and strictly in terms of the Advertisement Policy of the Government. The petitioner is permitted to file a representation before the appropriate authority in this regard. JUDGE Comparing Assistant