- (1.) This is a petition that a certain order passed by the District Magistrate on 16-4-1951 be quashed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is the publisher of a certain journal called the 'Hindu', and was called upon by the District Magistrate for certain reasons to submit his journal for pre-censorship under S. 7(i) (c), East Punjab Act V of 1949 as extended to the State of Ajmer. The contention of the petitioner is that the order is void on two grounds - firstly that the District Magistrate was not authorized to issue such order and, secondly, that the imposition pre-censorship offends against the provisions of Art. 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India and, as such, is altogether without jurisdiction.
(2.) The first question that arises for consideration in the petition is whether the District Magistrate was authorised to issue the impugned order under S. 7 (i) (c) of East Punjab Act 5 of 1949 as extended to the State of Ajmer. Admittedly, there was no such authorization under the aforesaid section by the Chief Commissioner on 16-4-1951. The authorization, as a matter of fact, was made by the Chief Commissioner by his Notification No. 11/14/49-Admn., dated 27-4-1951. The Govt. Advocate, however, has drawn my attention to a similar authorization made by the Chief Commissioner on 24-2-1948, when the Punjab Act II [2] of 1947 as extended to the Province of Ajmer-Merwara was in force.
(3.) Section 24, General Clauses Act, runs as below : 'Where any Central Act... is after the commencement of this Act, repealed and re-enacted with or without modification, then, unless it is otherwise expressly provided, any . . . notification . . . made or issued under the repealed Act . . . shall so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions re-enacted continue in force, and be deemed to have been made or issued under the provisions so re-enacted, unless and until it is superseded by any . . . notification . . . made or issued under the provisions so re-enacted .....;