- (1.) This appeal under S. 19 (1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act'), and the connected special leave petitions, are directed against two orders passed by the Addl. Judicial Commissioner, Goa, Daman and Diu, on October 10 and 17, 1980 by which he directed that the Government of Goa, Daman and Diu should issue accreditation to the respondent within 7 days, i. e., by October 17, 1980, later extended by a day and that the Administrator and the Acting Chief Secretary be impleaded to the contempt proceedings and they be issued notices to show cause for contempt. It is somewhat unfortunate that the case should have taken this turn. We feel that the learned Addl. Judicial Commissioner should have acted with greater circumspection. The whole controversy before the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner turned on the question whether or not prior residence was a pre-condition for the issue of accreditation, under Rule 2 (1) of S. II of the Rules for Accreditation of Press Correspondents and News Agencies (for short 'the Rules'), in the writ petition filed by the respondent, but the question was left undetermined. Rule 2 of S. II of the Rules is as follows : "2. The correspondent of a newspaper, news agency, etc., should fulfil the following conditions for accreditation: (1) His residence should be at the headquarters of the Government of Goa, Daman and Diu during his period of accreditation. (2) His full-time occupation should be the profession of journalism. (3) At the time of application he should have spent not less than three consecutive years in the profession of journalism and/or should be a person of sufficient experience and standing to be able to discharge his duties in a competent responsible manner." The learned Addl. Judicial Commissioner instead of dealing with the question relating to the construction of Rule 2 (1) of S. II of the Rules, has unnecessarily raised the spectre of supposed contempt upon the wrongful assumption that there was breach of an undertaking by the Administrator and the Acting Chief Secretary, and wilful disobedience of a lawful direction made by him in the matter of accreditation which lowered the dignity of the Court and was calculated to show disrespect to his authority.
(2.) In order to bring out the point in controversy, it is necessary to state a few facts. The respondent Mario Cabral e Sa, a professional journalist, applied for grant of accreditation to the Government of Goa, Daman and Diu, under Rule 2 of S. II of the Rules. It appears that the Accreditation Committee had recommended the grant, but the Government of Goa, Daman and Diu, declined the recommendation. The decision of the Government was conveyed to the respondent by a letter dated April 27, 1979 of the Director of Information and Public Relations, Department of Information, Panaji, Goa, informing him that the Government could not allow his application for accreditation since it did not fulfil the requirements of Rule 2 (1) of S. II of the Rules.
(3.) As the Government declined the grant of accreditation, the respondent filed an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution before the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, Goa, Daman and Diu, for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus or an appropriate writ, direction or order in the matter of grant of accreditation. The matter came up for hearing before the learned Addl. Judicial Commissioner on April 29, 1980, when he made the following order : "Mr. Dias, learned Government Advocate undertakes to advise the Government that accreditation will be issued to the petitioner on condition that he should be at the headquarters of the Government of Goa, Daman and Diu, during his period of accreditation as per Rule 2 (1) of the S. II of the Rules for Accreditation to Press Correspondents representing Indian Newspapers and News Agencies. In view of the above assurance furnished on behalf of Government, this Special Civil Application is disposed of accordingly but without costs.";