AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon''ble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon
Interalia contending that a proceeding pending before respondent No. 7 u/s 8-B of the Press & Registration of Books Act, 1867, is not being concluded by respondent No. 7 in a manner as it should be, and further contending that respondents 1 to 5 are creating hindrances in the smooth disposal of the proceeding by unnecessarily prolonging the matter, by making false and frivolous allegations, and also contending that an objection raised by the petitioners with regard to the right of respondents 1 to 6 to file their written statement in accordance to the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is not being decided by respondent No. 7, petitioners have filed this writ petition and the relief claimed reads as under: (i) This Hon''ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No. 7 that before proceeding further, the Application filed by the petitioners under Order 8 Rule 1, 4, 5 of the CPC 1908, shall be decided first.
(ii) This Hon''ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No. 7 to treat the preliminary objection filed by the respondents as their reply.
(iii) That, this Hon''ble Court may kindly be pleased to restrain the respondent No. 7 from receiving the fresh reply from the respondents.
(iv) Any other relief which this Hon''ble Court may deem fit and proper in the given facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted.
Shri Rohit Arya, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioners, took me through various documents and material available on record and tried to emphasize that the proceeding u/s 8-B is not being conducted properly and as respondent No. 7 is unnecessarily prolonging the matter, the directions as prayed for are sought.
Shri Sankalp Kochar, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 5, refuted the aforesaid and points out that the proceedings are being held in accordance to law, the provisions of the CPC are not applicable in a proceeding to be held u/s 8-B of the Press & Registration of Books Act, 1867 and further contending that the petitioners'' themselves are responsible for the delay, learned counsel prays for dismissal of this writ petition.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and on a perusal of the records it is clear that the proceedings u/s 8-B is pending before the District Magistrate, Jabalpur i.e. respondent No. 7 and on 25.11.2011, a Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 19393/2011, at the instance of the petitioners, has already directed the competent authority to conclude the proceedings expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight months. Under such circumstances, when respondent No. 7 is seized of the matter and is proceeding to decide the matter in accordance with law, interference at this interlocutory stage by this Court on the grounds canvassed in this writ petition, is not warranted.
Even the question as to whether a proceeding u/s 8-B of the Press & Registration of Books Act, 1867 is a proceeding in the nature of a suit and whether the provisions of Order VIII of the CPC are applicable, are all questions which are to be decided by respondent No. 7 and at this stage in this proceedings, no case is made out for interfering into the matter, particularly when the District Magistrate concerned i.e. respondent No. 7 is proceeding with the matter after taking note of all the objections that are raised by the parties and is trying to decide the same.
That apart, when there is already a direction by this Court to decide the matter expeditiously, no further indulgence into the matter at this interlocutory stage is called for, particularly when the proceedings are in the nature of an inquiry - quasi judicial in nature, and there is nothing in the Press & Registration of Books Act, 1867 to suggest that the strict rules prescribed under the CPC are applicable.
In view of the above, for the present, this Court does not find any ground to interfere into the matter. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.
