- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1159 WP No. 104934 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 104934 OF 2024 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: KIRAN VASANTH MULIMANI, EDITOR VALA JAGATTHU KANNADA MONTHLY NEWS PAPER, R/O VASAN VILLAGE, TQ: NARGUNDH, GADAG DISTRICT - 582 206. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHIVARAJ C. BELLAKKI, ADVOCATE AND SRI. RAKESH M. BILKI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, GADAG DISTRICT, GADAG. 2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GADAG DISTRICT, GADAG. 3. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SHASTRI, BHAVAN NEW DELHI-110001. Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1159 WP No. 104934 of 2024 4. REGISTRAR OF NEWSPAPER FOR INDIA, 9TH FLOOR, SOOCHANA BHAVAN, C.G.O COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI - 110 003. 5. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF NEWS PAPER FOR INDIA, 9TH FLOOR, SOOCHANA BHAVAN C.G.O COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI - 110 003. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. AHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. VENKATESH M. KHARANI, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R5, R6 AND R7) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO I) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 28.02.2024 PASSED IN NO.MAG/PRB/CR-13/2023-24 PASSED, BY THE RESPONDENT. NO. 1 AGAINST THE PETITIONER HEREIN, PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1159 WP No. 104934 of 2024 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court seeking quashment of an order dated 28.02.2024 passed by the first respondent against the petitioner and a consequent direction is sought seeking restoration of 'ಒಳ ಜಗತು' news journal to which the petitioner is the editor. 2. Heard Shri Shivaraj C. Bellakhi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Shri Sharad V. Mayadum, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 and Shri Venkatesh M. Kharavi, learned counsel for respondents No.3 to 7. 3. Facts in brief germane are as follows: The petitioner claims to be the editor of a monthly news journal called 'ಒಳ ಒಳ ಒಳ ಒಳ ಜಗತು ಜಗತು ಜಗತು ಜಗತು'. The certificate of registration is appended to the petition. Two trade welfare associations - Gadag Liquor Traders Welfare Association and Nargund Liquor Traders Association registers a complaint to the second respondent alleging that the petitioner, the editor of 'ಒಳ ಒಳ ಒಳ ಒಳ ಜಗತು ಜಗತು ಜಗತು ಜಗತು' is - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1159 WP No. 104934 of 2024 wanting to extort money from the liquor traders. The copy of the complaint is never served upon the petitioner. The second respondent - Superintendent of Police, Gadag prepares a report and forwards it to the first respondent for appropriate action. Therefore, the report moves from Superintendent of Police to the Deputy Commissioner - Gadag District. The first respondent then issues a show cause notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why the licence of his news journal should not be cancelled on the basis of the report sent by the second respondent. The petitioner files his objections to the show cause notice denying all the allegations in the report and also produces document to substantiate that he has not demanded money or indulged in extortion on the score that he is the editor of the said news journal. 4. The first respondent is said to have conducted certain proceedings, the averment is that the proceedings were conducted without authority of law. The result of the proceeding is a declaration of cancellation of the petitioner's news journal - 'ಒಳ ಒಳ ಒಳ ಒಳ ಜಗತು ಜಗತು ಜಗತು ಜಗತು'. The cancellation of registration is what has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1159 WP No. 104934 of 2024 5. The coordinate bench of this Court in terms of its order dated 28.10.2024 stayed further proceedings. The order reads as follows: "Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on I.A.No.1/2024. This application is filed seeking for consideration of interim prayer for stay. 2. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Shivaraj C. Bellakki, that the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is without authority of law and it directly violates the fundamental rights of the petitioner as he is the Editor of monthly newspaper called ‘Ola Jagattu’. 3. Learned counsel further contends that the powers are not vested with the Deputy Commissioner to pass an order under section 8B of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1887, except otherwise than what is mentioned under section 8B(i) to (iv) of the Act, whereas the sum and substance of the consideration for passing an order of declaration by the petitioner is based on complaint of Liquor Licence Holders Association of the petitioner demanding money and for extortion and non observation of Excise Act and Rules by the Liquor Licence Holders. On a careful examination of this provision to section 8B of the Act, the powers are vested with the Deputy Commissioner to cancel the declaration or otherwise authenticate the declaration by affording an opportunity to the concerned person that he is satisfied with any of the violations in section 8B(i) to (iv) of the Act. 4. It is apparently seen that the cancellation of the declaration is based on the complaints and reasons hereabove stated. The powers according to the learned counsel for the petitioner are vested with the Press Council of India and the action of the respondent Deputy Commissioner is in excess of the powers vested with him and is directly in violation of the fundamental rights provided to the petitioner. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1159 WP No. 104934 of 2024 5. Learned counsel relies on the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gopal Dass Sharma vs. The District Magistrate, Jammu and another, reported in (1973) 1 SCC 159 more specifically paragraph No.15, which is extracted hereunder: “15. It was said on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner had a right of appeal under Section 8-C of the Act. It is also said that no fundamental 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.” 6. So also in the case of Godrej Sara Lee Ltd., vs. Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority and others, reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 95, at paragraph No.6, which are extracted hereunder. 6. At the end of the last century, this court in paragraph 15 of its decision reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 (Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai) carved out the exceptions on the existence whereof a writ court would be justified in entertaining a writ petition despite the party approaching it not having availed the alternative remedy provided by the statute. The same read as under : (i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights ; ii) where there is violation of principles of natural justice ; (iii) where the order or the proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction ; or (iv) where the vires of an Act is challenged.” - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1159 WP No. 104934 of 2024 7. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to an interim order. Accordingly I pass the following: ORDER i) There shall be stay of the operation of the impugned order dated 28.02.2024 passed in No. MAG/PRB/CR-13/2023-24 by respondent No.1 against the petitioner, produced at Annexure-A, till the next date of hearing. ii) Call this matter on 13.11.2024." 6. Shri Shivaraj C. Bellakhi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the first respondent is not the authority which has the power to cancel the registration of a news journal or the newspaper. He has no authority to hold enquiry into complaint by third parties. It is his further submission that the only ground on which the declaration of the petitioner's news journal was sought to be cancelled is the petitioner getting embroiled in a crime in crime No.167/2023 registered for offences punishable under Sections 392 and 384 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It is the averment that the said crime is called in question before this Court in Crl.P.No.103129 /2023 and there is an interim order of stay operating in favour of the petitioner. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1159 WP No. 104934 of 2024 7. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate would vehemently refute the submission in contending that the petitioner being the editor of 'ಒಳ ಒಳ ಒಳ ಒಳ ಜಗತು ಜಗತು ಜಗತು ಜಗತು' has indulged in extortion. It is therefore, the crime came to be registered in Crime No.167/2023. Based upon the said registration, the cancellation of declaration happens. No fault can be found with the said order. He would seek dismissal of the petition. 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have produced the material on record. 9. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The issue lies in a narrow compass. What governs the monthly news journal of the petitioner is the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 ('the Act' for short). Section 8(B) of the Act deals with the cancellation of declaration. It reads as follows: "8-B. Cancellation of declaration. If, on an application made to him by the Press Registrar or any other person or otherwise, the Magistrate empowered to authenticate a declaration under this Act, is of opinion that any declaration made in respect of a newspaper should be cancelled, he may, after giving the person concerned an opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken, hold an inquiry into the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1159 WP No. 104934 of 2024 matter and if, after considering the cause, if any, shown by such person and after giving him an opportunity of being heard, he is satisfied that (i) the newspaper, in respect of which the declaration has been made is being published in contravention of the provisions of this Act or rules made thereunder, or (ii) 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 language or in the same State, or (iii) the printer or publisher has ceased to be the printer or publisher of the newspaper mentioned in such declaration, or (iv) the declaration was made on false representation or on the concealment of any material fact or in respect of a periodical work which is not a newspaper, the Magistrate may, by order, cancel the declaration and shall forward as soon as possible a copy of the order to the person making or subscribing the declaration and also to the Press Registrar." The relevant excerpts of the order of the cancellation are as follows: "Recently, the Gadag Liquor Trader Association and Nargund Liquor Trader Association have submitted memorandum to Superintendent of Police, Gadag Dated:12-10-2023 alleging that the editor of the said newspaper namely Kiran Mulimani and his Passociated Ravi Chintal and Durgappa Jamakhandi approaching the liquor shop owners and demanding money otherwise they will file a complaint to excise officials for non- observation of excise act and rules by the liquor license holders. In this way the Respondent and his associates blackmailing and threatening the liquor license holders and tried to extract money illegally by way of extortion. A case was already been registered against these - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1159 WP No. 104934 of 2024 persons at Naragund Police Station. In view of these facts and examining the complaints of the liquor license holders association, the Superintendent of Police, Gadag has requested the District Magistrate, Gadag vide his Letter No:DSB/Gadag/Title Cancellation/Report/01/2023 Dated:16-11-2023 requested to cancle the registration of above said news paper. In this case, after perusal of the records, the case was registered against the respondent in Crime No: 167/2023 u/s 392, 384 of the IPC at Naragund Police Station which is under investigation. In this case A-1) Durgappa Jamakhandi, Reporter of "Very Good Morning" newspaper was arrested and produced before the Magistrate and sent to Judicial Custody. Later he obtained the bail and got released from Judicial Custody. A2) Kiran Mulimani, the present respondent and editor of "Ola Jagattu" monthly newspaper and A3) Ravi Chintal, Activist in "Jaya Karnataka Organization" have also obtained bail from the Court. Now, it is necessary to state the Section 8 (B) of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1887 which empowers the District Magistrate to cancel the declaration which states as under: "8-B. Cancellation of declaration. If, on an application made to him by the Press Registrar or any other person or otherwise, the Magistrate empowered to authenticate a declaration under this Act, is of opinion that any declaration made in respect of a newspaper should be cancelled, he may, after giving the person concerned an opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken, hold an inquiry into the matter and if, after considering the cause, if any, shown by such person and after giving him an opportunity of being heard, he is satisfied that (i) the newspaper, in respect of which the declaration has been made is being published in contravention of the provisions of this Act or rules made thereunder, or (ii) the newspaper mentioned in the declaration bears a title which is the same as, or similar to, that of - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1159 WP No. 104934 of 2024 any other newspaper published either in the same language or in the same State, or (iii) the printer or publisher has ceased to be the printer or publisher of the newspaper mentioned in such declaration, or (iv) the declaration was made on false representation or on the concealment of any material fact or in respect of a periodical work which is not a newspaper, the Magistrate may, by order, cancel the declaration and shall forward as soon as possible a copy of the order to the person making or subscribing the declaration and also to the Press Registrar. Since, Section 8 (B) of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 188, empowers the District Magistrate to cancel the declaration if the editor of the publishers violates the provisions of this Act and Rules. Hence the following Order. -: Order :- The declaration submitted by the Respondent in Form-1 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1887 (in respect of "Ola Jagattu" monthly newspaper) is hereby cancelled. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the Respondent and also The Press Registrar of news papers on India. Sd/- Deputy Commissioner & District Magistrate Gadag District, Gadag." 10. The declaration of the newspaper is cancelled invoking Section 8(B) of the Act. Section 8(B) is quoted supra. Section 8(B) clearly observes that the cancellation can come - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1159 WP No. 104934 of 2024 about only after giving the person concern an opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken, hold an enquiry into the matter, and if after the enquiry it is found that the concerned is guilty, it is only then the order can be passed and the said order should be forwarded to the press Registrar. None of these traits that are necessary in law have happened in the case at hand. 11. The submission of the learned Additional Government Advocate that no fundamental right or statutory right is taken away by the petitioner, therefore he should prefer an appeal under Section 8(C) of the Act and the writ petition should not be entertained, is a submission that is noted only to be rejected. The Apex Court in the case of GOPAL DASS SHARMA Vs. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, JAMMU AND ANOTHER1, has held as follows: "13. In the present case the respondents justify the cancellation on the ground that the title of Blitzkrieg is the same as that of Blitz. In the affidavit the District Magistrate stated that the title of Blitzkrieg “had been inadvertently cleared in favour of” the petitioner. That is not a ground for cancellation of declaration. The petitioner gave the title Blitzkrieg as the first in order of preference. Eleven titles were given. The Magistrate authenticated the petitioner's declaration in 1 (1973) 1 SCC 159 - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1159 WP No. 104934 of 2024 respect of the title Blitzkrieg. The newspaper Blitz 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. 14. The cancellation was wrongful. It was hasty. No opportunity was given to the petitioner. The explanation of a typing error with regard to the date indicates the unseemly haste with which the District Magistrate took action against the petitioner. 15. It was said on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner had a right of appeal under Section 8-C of the Act. It is also said that no fundamental 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." 12. The Apex Court in a later judgment in the case of GODREJ SARA LEE LTD. Vs. EXCISE & TAXATION OFFICER-CUM-ASSESSING AUTHORITY & ORS.2 holds that a writ petition is maintainable on certain circumstances despite the availability of alternative remedy. The Apex Court has held as follows: "4. Before answering the questions, we feel the urge to say a few words on the exercise of writ powers conferred by article 226 of the Constitution having come across certain orders passed by the High Courts holding writ petitions as "not maintainable" merely because the alternative remedy provided by the relevant statutes has not been pursued by the parties desirous of invocation of the writ jurisdiction. The power to issue prerogative writs under article 226 is plenary in nature. Any limitation on the exercise of such power must be traceable in the 2 (2023) SCC Online SC 95 - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1159 WP No. 104934 of 2024 Constitution itself. Profitable reference in this regard may be made to article 329 and ordainments of other similarly worded articles in the Constitution. Article 226 does not, in terms, impose any limitation or restraint on the exercise of power to issue writs. While it is true that exercise of writ powers despite availability of a remedy under the very statute which has been invoked and has given rise to the action impugned in the writ petition ought not to be made in a routine manner, yet, the mere fact that the petitioner before the High Court, in a given case, has not pursued the alternative remedy available to him/it cannot mechanically be construed as a ground for its dismissal. It is axiomatic that the High Courts (bearing in mind the facts of each particular case) have a discretion whether to entertain a writ petition or not. One of the self-imposed restrictions on the exercise of power under article 226 that has evolved through judicial precedents is that the High Courts should normally not entertain a writ petition, where an effective and efficacious alternative remedy is available. At the same time, it must be remembered that mere availability of an alternative remedy of appeal or revision, which the party invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under article 226 has not pursued, would not oust the jurisdiction of the High Court and render a writ petition "not maintainable". In a long line of decisions, this court has made it clear that availability of an alternative remedy does not operate as an absolute bar to the "maintainability" of a writ petition and that the rule, which requires a party to pursue the alternative remedy provided by a statute, is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law. Though elementary, it needs to be restated that "entertainability" and "maintainability" of a writ petition are distinct concepts. The fine but real distinction between the two ought not to be lost sight of. The objection as to "maintainability" goes to the root of the matter and if such objection were found to be of substance, the courts would be rendered incapable of even receiving the lis for adjudication. On the other hand, the question of "entertainability" is entirely within the realm of discretion of the High Courts, writ remedy being discretionary. A writ petition despite being maintainable may not be entertained by a High Court for very many reasons or relief could even be refused to the petitioner, despite setting up a sound legal point, if grant of the claimed - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1159 WP No. 104934 of 2024 relief would not further public interest. Hence, dismissal of a writ petition by a High Court on the ground that the petitioner has not availed the alternative remedy without, however, examining whether an exceptional case has been made out for such entertainment would not be proper. 6. At the end of the last century, this court in paragraph 15 of its decision reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 (Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai) carved out the exceptions on the existence whereof a writ court would be justified in entertaining a writ petition despite the party approaching it not having availed the alternative remedy provided by the statute. The same read as under: (i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights ; (ii) where there is violation of principles of natural justice ; (iii) where the order or the proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction ; or (iv) where the vires of an Act is challenged." In the light of the admitted fact that the order which takes away the right of the petitioner being passed in blatant violation of principles of natural justice, I hold that the writ petition is maintainable and obliterate the order passed against the petitioner. 13. For the aforesaid reasons, the following ORDER (i) Writ petition is allowed; and - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1159 WP No. 104934 of 2024 (ii) The order dated 28.02.2024 passed in No.MAG/PRB/CR-13/2023-24 passed by the first respondent against the petitioner stands quashed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14 CT: BHK