- (1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. It prays that the notification passed by the State Government on 29th April, 1966 be quashed and the respondents be directed to release and restore to the petitioners the copies of the special issue forfeited under- that notification.
(2.) THE petitioners are the trustees of Nida-e-Millat Trust which publishes, inter alia, a weekly Urdu Journal called Nida-e-Millat The trust had intended to publish a special issue of this Journal entitled as Muslim University Special on 6th August 1965. It was printed at the Tanvir Press. On the night of 31st July, 1965 the police raided the premises of the Tanvir Press as also the residence of Dr. Asif Qidwai, the editor of this Journal, and the premises of the office of this Journal at 99. Gwyne Road, Lucknow. The Editor, Printer, Publisher, the General Manager and Circulation Manager of this Journal were arrested and a large number of bound as well as unbound copies of this special issue were taken into custody. A large number of copies had already been posted. They were recovered from railway mail service at Lucknow. The arrested persons were in due course prosecuted under Rule 41 read with Rule 44 of the Defence of India Rules. On behalf of the respondents' it is stated that the representatives of the Journal and other persons made representations to the State Government for the withdrawal of the prosecution on various grounds. The Government decided to withdraw the case on humanitarian grounds. On 23rd April, 1966 the Public Prosecutor made an application before the City Magistrate Lucknow for permission to withdraw the prosecution. The Magistrate after considering the matter granted the permission. On 29th April, 1966 the State Government issued the impugned notification forfeiting the special issue of the Journal. The notification, states that the State Government is of the opinion that the Muslim University Special Number of the Journal was prejudicial report under Clauses (e), (g) and (h) of Sub-rule (6) of Rule 35, read with Sub-rule (7) of the Defence of India Rules. Consequently, it was being forfeited under Rule 45 (1) (e) of the Defence of India Rules.
(3.) MR. Asif Ansari, learned counsel for the petitioners, has challenged the validity of this notification on the grounds:-- (a) That the State Government did not at all apply its mind to the question whether the special number constituted a prejudicial report. (b) That the special number did not in fact and in law constitute a prejudicial report, and (c) That the forfeiture of the entire issue violated Section 44 of the Defence of India Act. ;