C.M.LODHA, J. - (1.) A show cause notice was issued to the non -petitioners in this case regarding admission of the writ application In response to the show cause notice, the State of Rajasthan has filed a detailed reply to the writ petition itself.
(2.) THE complaint of the petitioner is that the declaration given by him as the publisher of the weekly newspaper 'Paigame Haqiquat' has been wrongly cancelled by the District Magistrate, Jodhpur. by his order dated June 28. 1975 (Exhibit R/3). It has been contended that no opportunity of showing cause as provided in Section 8B of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 (which will hereinafter be referred to as 'the Act') was given to she petitioner. It is also contended that Section 8B has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The reply on behalf of the State is that the petitioner had ceased to be the printer and publisher of the newspaper mentioned in the declaration, inasmuch, as he had not published the paper regularly in the year 1974. It be also been urged that the publisher failed to comply with the provisions of Section 11A of the Act, inasmuch as he failed to deliver free of expense two copies of each issue of such newspaper as soon as it was published during the year 1974 -75. As to the question of opportunity being given to show cause, it has been pointed out that before cancelling the declaration the petitioner had been served with show cause notice dated July 29, 1975 and August 16, 1975, Another letter is alleged to have been sent on July 18, 1975. The learned Deputy Government Advocate has also placed before me the original reply dated August 6, 1975 signed by the petitioner wherein it has been mentioned that the petitioner had received the letter from the District Magistrate Jodhpur dated July 29, 1975. It further appears and is not denied before me that even when being called upon to produce the copies of the newspaper for the years 1974 and 75, the petitioner produced copies of the newspaper published in 1975 only. It is thus abundantly clear that the petitioner had not complied with the provisions of Section 11A of the Act during the years 1974 -75 and had also not published the newspaper regularly during the year 1974.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner contends that even in case of non -compliance with the provisions of Section 11A of the Act, the declaration cannot be cancelled and action can only be taken under Section 16A of the Act for imposition of penalty for failure to supply copies of newspaper to the Press Registrar. This argument, in my opinion, is not tenable, inasmuch as Section 16A provides that if any publisher of a newspaper published in India neglects to deliver copies of the game in compliance with Section 11A, he shall, on the complain of the officer to whom copies should have been delivered or of any person authorised by that officer in this behalf, be punishable, on conviction by a Magistrate hiving jurisdiction in the place where the newspaper was printed, with fine which may extend to fifty rupees for every default. Thus in addition to the administrative action which may be taken against to the petitioner for cancellation of the declaration, he can also be exposed to prosecution under Section 16A of the Act.;