IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE,
ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD.
W.A. No. 1178 of 2005
W.P. No. 22585 of 2004
I. BALAMANI, W/o I. Mallikarjuna Sharma,
H. No. 6-3-1243/156, D. Sanjeevaiah Nagar, M.S. Makta,
Opposite Raj Bhavan, HYDERABAD - 500 082. … APPELLANT/
Petitioner in WP 22585/2004.
A N D
1. The Concerned Magistrate for Newspapers -
presently, Mr. Ismail, Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Office of the Commissioner of Police,
Basheerbagh, HYDERABAD - 500 029.
2. The Registrar of Newspapers for India (RNI), Wing 2,
West Block 8, R.K. Puram, New Delhi - 110 066.
3. Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its
Chief Secretary, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad - 500 022.
4. Ministry of Information and Public Relations,
Government of India, headed and represented by
Sri S. Jaipal Reddy, Union Cabinet Minister,
14, Akbar Road, NEW DELHI - 110 011. … RESPONDENTS.
* * *
The address for service of notices, process etc. to the above named appellant/petitioner is that of her counsel, I. Mallikarjuna Sharma, Advocate, H.No. 6-3-1243/116, D. Sanjeevaiah Nagar (M.S. Makta), Opposite Raj Bhavan, Hyderabad - 500 082.
Aggrieved by the Order dated Monday, the twenty-fifth day of April, Two thousand five [25-04-2005] of a single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 22585 of 2004, the appellants-petitioner herein submits this Memorandum of Writ Appeal on the following among other
G R O U N D S :
1. The impugned judgment of the learned single Judge is contrary to the facts and law of the case.
2. The learned Judge erred in not declaring that either the Commissioner of Police or the Joint Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad or whoever police officer acting as the 1st respondent herein has no jurisdiction to act as the Concerned Magistrate for Newspapers, especially when he categorically found that no provision of law or notification authorizing any of them to act so could be produced before the Court by the respondents;
3. The learned Judge erred in stating that a police officer acting as an Executive Magistrate would be more suitable and efficient person to be the Concerned Magistrate for Newspapers, when it is clearly defined in the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 that only a person with full powers of a Magistrate or a Magistrate of Police could come under the denomination and both the categories of Magistrates could only be that of Judicial Magistrates by virtue of construction of the references in Section 3 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 and also in S. 3 of the later Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973;
4. The learned Judge failed to note that in a metropolitan area, such judicial Magistrate empowered to act as Magistrate can only be a Metropolitan Magistrate; and this applies to even Section 5 of the Press Act.
5. The learned Judge erred in not categorically declaring that the demand for user-charges for newspaper declarations by the 1st respondent is illegal and hence all the user-charges so illegally collected by him so far are liable to be refunded to the respective publishers who were made to pay those;
6. The learned Judge erred in observing that affixation of 1 Rupee Court Fee Stamp is essential for the processing of an application dated 16-08-2004 filed by the petitioner herein, when there is no such requirement indicated either in the Press and Registration of Books Act or the Rules framed under that Act;
7. The learned Judge failed to note that the application dated
16-08-2004 was given by the petitioner to facilitate the discharge of his duty by the 1st Respondent and there is no specific provision in the Press and Registration of Books Act for any such application and as such no court fee is payable on it;
8. The learned Judge failed to see that even if 1 Rupee Court Fee is payable on the application, the 1st Respondent did not take any objection in that regard and did not give an opportunity to the petitioner to correct her lapse and re-present the application, and that Section 5 of the AP Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act is categorical in laying down that if any such court fee is paid at a later stage, it would be deemed to have been paid in the first instance itself;
9. The learned Judge erred in directing the petitioner to submit a fresh application in connection with filing declaration before the District Magistrate instead of directing a competent Metropolitan Magistrate to process the already filed application/declaration and authenticate the declaration expeditiously;
10. Such other grounds as may be urged at the time of hearing of this writ appeal.
The fixed Court Fee of Rs. 100/- is paid.
Dated 21-06-2005. COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT/PETITIONER.
Of later developments subsequent to filing this Writ Appeal to be continued in the next post...