Anal Roy Choudhury vs State Of Tripura And Ors

[1] Heard Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents No.1 and 2 and Mr. B. Majumder, learned CGC appearing for the respondents No.3 and 4. Mr. A. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel has appeared for the respondent No.5.

[2] It is not in dispute that on the complaint filed by the respondent No.5, Ananda Kr. Nath on 25.04.2017 to the District Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala alleging that the newspaper of the petitioner, namely Pratibadi Kalam being published from a press in respect of which no declaration in terms of the Press and Registration Books Act, 1867 has been made. Beyond that there were other allegations in respect of nature of news items as published in the said newspaper. After receipt of the said complaint, a proceeding was drawn under Section 8(2) of the Press and Registration Books Act, 1867, PRB Act in short and a show cause was issued to the petitioner asking him why the declaration which did not carry the correct information shall not be cancelled.

[3] The petitioner has admitted that under certain compelling circumstances, the newspaper had to be printed from a press called "Mudran" located at Ramnagar Road No.4, Agartala. It has been further stated that the declaration was submitted by the printer and publisher of the said newspaper on 18.09.2013 showing the name of the said printing press, but the District Magistrate has in the final order dated 24.06.2017 in Case No.01 of 2017 observed that the said declaration was not authenticated by any person competent to authenticate such declaration. In that circumstances, the petitioner sought accommodation for filing an authenticated declaration for observance of the requirement of law.

[4] The law is very clear as to how to place the declaration in respect of a newspaper which had registered title with the Registrar of Newspapers in India (RNI) under Section 4(1) of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 which provides that no person shall within India keep in its possession any press for the printing of books or papers who shall not make and subscribe the declaration before the District Presidency or Sub-Divisional Magistrate within whose local jurisdiction such press may be. Thus, the District Magistrates and the Sub-Divisional Magistrates are empowered to authenticate such declaration.

[5] According to the District Magistrate, West Tripura, any authentication by the Deputy Collector and Magistrate (DCM) is illegal as per the PRB Act. It appears from the said final order that the District Magistrate had initiated an inquiry in respect of the printing press wherefrom the newspaper of the petitioner used to be printed. It appeared from the said inquiry report that without any authenticated declaration, the newspaper of the petitioner was being printed from "Mudran" which did not authenticate any declaration for printing of the petitioners‟ newspaper. The said verification, as reduced in the report, has been accepted by the District Magistrate but simultaneously it has been admitted that no copy of the said report was furnished to the petitioner for his response. During the proceeding, the petitioner had also made a communication to RNI to supply the authenticated document which he had submitted to RNI for changing of the location and address of the printing press.

[6] The District Magistrate has noted in its final order that the petitioner had illegally changed the location and address of his printing press. The complaint was inquired by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar Sub-Division and from the report, it transpired clearly that the petitioner had been printing his newspaper from a press which did not have any authenticated declaration. RNI had also responded that no such declaration was available with them. In the earlier declaration, the name of the printing press as authenticated was Times Press, Ramnagar Road No.5, Agartala, Tripura West.

[7] The District Magistrate after affording opportunity to the petitioner for his response, cancelled the declaration under Section 8(B) of the RRB Act and as consequence thereof, cancelled all the declarations [relating to RNI Registration No. TRIDEN/2010/33397] for violation of Section 4(2), Section 5(3) and Section 8 of PRB Act.

[8] The District Magistrate has directed the complainant, the respondent No.4, to take penal action against the petitioner. It has been noted in the said order that the publication of the newspaper may resume again if the order is set aside by the Press and Registration Appellate Board. The said order dated 24.06.2017 was, later on, corrected by the District Magistrate by the corrigendum dated 24.06.2017 by changing the Para 6(5). For the said correction made in the order dated 21.06.2017 the new direction that has been added is that the certificate of registration shall cease to have effect, as soon as the declaration under which the newspaper is published becomes avoid. The petitioner even though initially approached this court when this court providing the petitioner, a very limited protection, asked to approach the Press and Registration Appellate Board under Section 8(C) of the PRB Act. In the said appeal, the Appellate Board has not substantively interfered in respect of the order of the District Magistrate, but since a fresh declaration, filed by the petitioner, was pending for authentication, by the order dated 20.07.2018, the Press and Registration Appellate Board ordered and directed as follows:

"It is true that on 04.07.2017 Shri Anal Roy Chaudhury along with one Ld. Advocate came to the chamber of the District Magistrate, West Tripura District and tried to submit a declaration for change of address and location of his printing press. As already the District Magistrate, West Tripura District has cancelled all the declarations (whether genuine or fake) in respect of the newspaper "Pratibadi Kalam" by an order u/s 8B of PRB Act, 1867, on 24.06.2017, the question of authentication of any declaration of already banned newspaper does not arise at all. Hence the District Magistrate, West Tripura District did not entertain the said illegal prayer of the Appellant and advised him to file an appeal before the Hon'ble Press & Registration Appellate Board, New Delhi as per Section 8C of the PRB Act 1867 against the order passed by the undersigned i.e. the District Magistrate, West Tripura District."

[Extracted from the reply filed by the District Magistrate supported by an affidavit on 19.07.2018 before the Press and Registration Appellate Board in reply to the appeal memorandum filed by the petitioner.]

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that when the appellant had filed a fresh declaration, the District Magistrate was under an obligation to consider the same on merit. Although the counsel for the State of Tripura, appears but he has not made any submission.

Mr. Anupam Bhattacharya, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 submits that the appellant had gone to the High Court without the permission of the Board and on this ground alone the appeal be dismissed. The submission has only been noted to be rejected. No permission is required of the Board for going to the High Court against the Order of the District Magistrate.

The Appellate Board is of the opinion that the District Magistrate singularly failed to exercise his statutory obligation. Once the declaration is filed, the District Magistrate is obliged to consider that on merit. Accordingly, the Appellate Board directs the District Magistrate to entertain the declaration made by the appellant and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. As the publication of the newspaper has stopped, the Appellate Board directs the District Magistrate to pass appropriate order within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of this Order." [Emphasis added]

On reading of the said order, it appears that the contention of the District Magistrate for denying the authentication of the subsequent declaration has been interfered by the Press & Registration Appellate Board holding categorically that the District Magistrate has failed singularly to discharge his statutory duty to authenticate the declaration.

[9] Having received that order, the petitioner appeared before the District Magistrate and the District Magistrate by the order dated 14.09.2008, Anexure-7 had observed quite strangely as follows:

"The Appellant made an argument that the order passed by the Press & Registration Appellate Board implied that the earlier order of the D.M & Collector dated 24/06/2017 is set aside, this court has again seen & read again the order passed by the Appellate Board on 20/07/2018, nothing was mentioned regarding setting aside the order of DM & Collector dated 24/06/2017 by the Appellate Board on order regarding cancellation of the declaration daily news "Pratibadi Kalam". Appellant (Sri Anal Roy Choudhury) is directed to file an application before the Appellate Board to seek the clarification of the issue of setting set aside of the order passed by the D.M & Collector within 15 days."

[10] The petitioner, accordingly, moved the Press & Registration Appellate Board and after hearing the perspective of filing such application by the appellant before the said board, the board has made a caustic remark as regards the conduct of the District Magistrate. For purpose of reference, the relevant part from the order passed by the Press & Registration Appellate Board on 24.10.2018 is reproduced hereunder:

"The Appellate Board is of the opinion that the earlier order passed by the District Magistrate cancelling the declaration may or may not be right and even if not set aside by the Appellate Board, he is not denuded with the power to entertain or authenticate fresh declaration. In the opinion of the Appellate Board whenever fresh declaration is filed the only enquiry which the District Magistrate needs to make is as to whether on the date of consideration, the newspaper seeking authentication of the declaration satisfies the requirements of law. Further, in the opinion of the Appellate Board once the District Magistrate comes to the conclusion that the Appellant had satisfied the requirements of authentication on the day he is considering the question, he is left with no option then to authenticate the declaration and cannot refuse authentication of declaration on the ground that he had cancelled the declaration earlier. The Appellate Board regrets to record that in a matter like this, the District Magistrate has directed the Appellant to seek clarification. The District Magistrate is expected to have this basic knowledge of law." [Emphasis added]

With the aforesaid observation, the Appellate Board had disposed the application filed in pursuance to the order of the District Magistrate and directed the District Magistrate to pass an appropriate order on the application filed by „the appellant‟ for authentication of declaration within 3 (three) working days from date of receipt of the order.

[11] On 26.10.2008, the petitioner filed the order of the Press & Registration Appellate Board dated 20.04.2018 along with an amended declaration on 26.10.2018, [Annexure-11 to the writ petition].

From the order passed by the District Magistrate on 31.10.2018 it transpires that the fresh declaration regarding the change of the printing press had been duly received from the publisher/owner/editor/printer of the said newspaper, Pratibadi Kalam. The District Magistrate, as it appears, directed an inquiry to be conducted by the Superintendent of Police, Tripura and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar. Copies of the declaration were forwarded to those officers for their utility.

[12] It is really strange that despite the copy of the order of the Press and Registration Appellate Board was furnished to the District Magistrate by the petitioner on 26.10.2018, the first notice to the petitioner was issued on 16.01.2019 (Annexure-14 to the writ petitioner) appointing the returnable date on 21.01.2019.

The petitioner was also asked to submit the representation for his behalf, if any. This is a gross violation of direction of the Press and Registration Appellate Board inasmuch as in view of the hierarchy created by the PRB Act, the authority of the District Magistrate is unequivocally subordinated by the Press and Registration Appellate Board being the appellate authority under Section 8(C) of the PRB Act.

[13] Be that as it may, the respondents have admitted by filing a reply that no order was passed within the said stipulated time. The petitioner being persuaded by the conduct of the District Magistrate filed this writ petition. This court by the order dated 22.01.2019 asked the District Magistrate not to pass any order or record any observation in pursuance to the notice dated 16.01.2019 till the next date and he should not proceed further in any manner. On 30.01.2011 on the asking of the state respondents, this court made accommodation for filing the reply by the official respondents.

[14] Despite that, the District Magistrate passed the order on 31.01.2019. In the said order dated 31.01.2019 the District Magistrate had observed that as per the direction of this Court, the writ petitioner had filed the appeal before the Press and Registration Appellate Board against the order cancelling declaration of the newspaper. The said Appellate Board had directed the District Magistrate, West Tripura, to send the original record/ documents to the Appellate Board. The said Appellate Board had directed the District Magistrate to consider authentication of the declaration submitted by the petitioner. For that reason, the District Magistrate has contended that he had issued the notice to the petitioner. A fresh declaration was submitted by the petitioner on 26.10.2018 for purpose of authentication. But the District Magistrate had launched an inquiry through the SDM and the Superintendent of Police, West Tripura. In the reply, there is no tangible clarification why the direction of the said Appellate Board was not complied with, inasmuch as even if a new situation arose, the District Magistrate cannot change the course of compliance.

[15] Thereafter, the District Magistrate has recorded that against the petitioner there are several criminal actions pending in the various criminal courts of the state. A catalogue of such case has been given in the order dated 31.01.2019. Thereafter, the District Magistrate has recorded some civil actions against the petitioners as regards libel or defamation.

[16] Having recorded those cases, the District Magistrate has cancelled the declarations made in respect of the newspaper and furnished on 20.08.2019, 26.10.2018 and 02.11.2019 under the PRB Act. But how the petitioner is debarred to get authentication under the PRB Act has not been reasoned in the entire order.

[17] Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that, the District Magistrate has not only flouted the direction of the Press and Registration Appellate Board as well has not acted in accordance with the law as provided under the PRB Act. The inquiry which he has made for purpose of denying the authentication of the declaration is grossly beyond his competence. The areas of inquiry are well entrenched in the PRB Act particularly in proviso to Section 6 of the PRB Act. Therefore, the entire order on the face of the records is unconstitutional and an attempt to infringe the right of the press by an arbitrary action.

[18] Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents No.1 and 2 has contended in order to repel the submission of Mr. Lodh, learned counsel that cancellation of the earlier declarations by the District Magistrate had not been interfered by the Press and Registration Appellate Board. Such authentication cannot be granted inasmuch as for existence of the previous order as remained un-interfered by the said Board, the registration of the newspaper continue to stand ceased.

[19] That apart, Mr. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A. has submitted that the reports of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police, West Tripura do point to the nefarious activities of the petitioner and hence the declaration cannot be authenticated under the law. But no reference has been made to any law.

[20] Mr. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A. has in particular referred to the provisions of rule 10(4) of the Registration of Newspapers (Central) Rules, 1956 whereby it has been provided that the certificate of registration ceased to be affected as soon as the declaration under which the newspaper is published becomes void or a newspaper is removed from the register of newspapers, maintained by the Press Registrar. The Press Registrar has been defined under Section 1 of the PRB Act in the following terms:

" "Press Registrar" means the Registrar of Newspapers for India appointed by the Central Government under Section 19A and includes any other person appointed by the Central Government to perform all or any of the function of the press registrar."

The respondent No.4 is the Press Registrar being represented by Mr. B. Majumder, learned CGC. The respondent No.4 has filed a separate reply and in para-14, as referred by Mr. B. Majumder, learned CGC, it has been asserted that the petitioner had requested the Press Registrar to submit further requisite documents by the letter dated 17.02.2017, but before any response could be made, the Press Registrar received the copy of the order dated 24.06.2017 passed by the respondent No.2 i.e. the District Magistrate, West Tripura District whereby all declarations made and subscribed by the petitioner were cancelled. In view of the subsequent letter dated 18.07.2017 by the District Magistrate, the process of the revised registration in respect of the newspaper of the petitioner was halted.

[21] The Press Registrar has nowhere averred that the name of the newspaper has been removed from the register of newspapers maintained by him. Thus, the entire controversy melts down to whether the cancellation of the previous declarations, even if not interfered by the Press and Registration Appellate Board would bar the further authentication of declaration by the District Magistrate and whether the District Magistrate has exercised his power so far the inquiry is concerned in terms of the provision of the PRB Act, 1867?

[22] Mr. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A., however has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition in view of Section 8C of the PRB Act which provides remedy to file appeal. In response to this objection Mr. Lodh, learned counsel has referred a decision of the apex court in Roshina T. v. Abdul Azeez K.T. and Others where the extent of jurisdiction under Article 226 has been discussed. The relevant passage is reproduced hereunder:

"It has been consistently held by this Court that a regular suit is the appropriate remedy for settlement of the disputes relating to property rights between the private persons. The remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution shall not be available except where violation of some statutory duty on the part of statutory authority is alleged. In such cases, the Court has jurisdiction to issue appropriate directions to the authority concerned. It is held that the High Court cannot allow its constitutional jurisdiction to be used for deciding disputes, for which remedies under the general law, civil or criminal are available. This court has held that it is not intended to replace the ordinary remedies by way of a civil suit or application available to an aggrieved person. The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution being special and extraordinary, it should not be exercised casually or lightly on mere asking by the litigant. (See Mohan Pande v. Usha Rani, 1992 (4) SCC 61 (AIR 2003 SC 1225) and Dwarka Prasad Agrawal v. BD Agrawal, (2003) 6 SCC 230) : (AIR 2003 SC 2686)."

[23] There cannot be any amount of disagreement that the Press and Registration Appellate Board had categorically observed and underlined that the District Magistrate has failed to discharge his statutory duty. The identical allegations of failing in discharging the statutory duty have been made in this writ petition. Thus, this court finds no jurisprudential impediment to exercise its special jurisdiction in order to sensitize the District Magistrate to discharge his statutory duty in the manner as provided under the PRB Act. Hence, this objection fails. To answer the questions as formulated above, this court would make a brief reference to the provisions of law. Section 3 of the PRB Act provides that every book or paper printed within India shall have printed legibly on it the name of the printer and the place of printing and if the book or paper be published the name of the publisher and the name of the publication.

[24] The keeper of the printing press shall have to make declaration under Section 4 of the PRB Act in the format as provided thereunder [Section 4(1) of the PRB Act]. Section 5 of the PRB Act deals with the rules as to the publication of the newspapers. It stipulates that no newspaper shall be published in India except in conformity with the rules made thereunder. The said rules inter alia, provide that the printer and the publisher of every newspaper shall appear before the District Presidency and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate within its local jurisdiction wherefrom such newspaper shall be printed and published and shall make the declaration in duplicate and in the format which has been provided under the said section for purpose of authentication by the District Magistrate and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in the State of Tripura.

[25] There are other provisions which are not very relevant in the present context and for that reason, those were referred to. The pertinent provision is Section 6 of the PRB Act has its bearing on the present controversy. Section 6 provides that each of the two originals of every declaration so made and subscribed, as is referred before, shall be authenticated by the signature and official seal of the Magistrate before whom the said declaration shall be made. Provise, as referred by Mr. Lodh, learned counsel, provides as follows :

"Provided that where any declaration is made and subscribed under Section 5 in respect of a newspaper, the declaration shall not, save in the case of newspapers owned by the same person, be so authenticated unless the Magistrate [is, on inquiry from the Press Registrar, satisfied] that the newspaper proposed to be published does not bear a title which is the same as, or similar to, that of any other newspaper published either in the same language or in the same State."

[26] Section 8 of the PRB Act provides that if any person who had signed the declaration and subsequently ceased to be the printer or the publisher shall make a further declaration to the effect that be he has ceased to be the printer or the publisher etc. Section 8A of the PRB Act provides that if any person whose name has appeared as the editor on a copy of the newspaper claims that he was not the editor of the issue on which his name is so appeared, he may within two weeks of his being aware that his name has been so published appear before the District Presidency or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and make a declaration that his name was incorrectly published in that issue as the editor and if the Magistrate after making such inquiry or causing such inquiry to be made as may consider necessary is satisfied that such declaration is true, he shall certify accordingly and that certificate be given shall record that the provision of Section 7 shall not apply to the person in respect of the issue of the newspaper. The Magistrate may extend the period allowed in any case where he is satisfied that such person was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing and making the declaration within the stipulated period. So it is clear that the inquiry under Section 8 is in respect of the specific occasion when the editor has ceased to be the editor. Thus, the inquiry would be in that occasion in respect of whether that person has in fact ceased to be the editor and after such cessation whether the name had been published in the newspaper as the editor or not. If the declaration is found correct, then the responsibility of the editor as saddled under Section 7 can be exempted for all purposes.

[27] The most relevant and pertinent provision is Section 8B of the PRB Act which provides which for cancellation of declaration. Section 8B provides that if on application made to him by the Press Registrar or any other person otherwise, the Magistrate empowered to authenticate declaration under the PRB Act, is of the opinion that any declaration made in respect of a newspaper should be cancelled, he may after giving the person concerned an opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken, hold an inquiry into the matter and if after considering the cause, if any, shown by such person and after giving an opportunity of being heard, he is satisfied that -

(i) the newspaper in respect of which the declaration has been made is being published in contravention of the provisions of the Act or rules made thereunder; or

(ii) the newspaper mentioned in the declaration bears a title which is the same as, or similar to, that of any other newspaper published either in the same language or in the same State; or

(iii) the printer and the publisher has ceased to be the printer and the publisher of the newspaper mentioned in such declaration; or

(iv) the declaration was made on false representation or on concealment of any material fact or in respect of a periodical work which is not a newspaper;

[28] The Magistrate may, by order, cancel the declaration and shall forward, as soon as possible, a copy of the said order to the person making or subscribing the declaration and also to the Press Registrar. The mainstay of the controversy is publication of newspaper by the printer who has not made the statutory declaration as the printer nor any declaration is made regarding cessation. The complaint was made by the respondent No.5 seeking action against the petitioner.

[29] In this controversy provisions of Section 8B (iii) is further relevant as the allegation was that the printer had ceased to be the printer of the petitioner‟s newspaper but no fresh declaration in respect of cessation of the printer was made. The newspaper continued to be published by a new printer. On the complaint of the respondent No.5 represented by Mr. A. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel the said proceeding, as stated, was initiated under Section 8B of the PRB Act. The complaint was designed to stop "illegal‟ publication of the newspaper which according to the complainant was abusing the right to freedom of expression, that too in a rampant manner. But the respondent No.5 has not taken any punitive action as directed the District Magistrate.

[30] This court is confronted with the question that once the power under Section 8B of the PRB Act is exercised by the District Magistrate by cancelling the declaration, whether the person in whose name the title of the newspaper is registered with the Press Registrar can make or subscribe the fresh declaration or not. The answer must be in the affirmative. The purpose of the law as referred above is clearly not to allow any person to publish a newspaper with incorrect declaration or a false declaration or without any declaration in respect of the printing press. But cancellation of the declaration, if the person submitted a fresh declaration, the District Magistrate or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has duty to consider authentication of the said declaration in terms of Section 6 of the PRB Act. The PRB Act has authorized the District Magistrate or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to conduct inquiry within the limit of Sections 6 and 7 of the PRB Act. But two inquiries as referred and carried out at the instance of the District Magistrate are wholly extraneous and in absence of the jurisdiction. So far inquiry under Section 6 of the PRB act for the purpose of authentication of the declaration is concerned, it is restricted to verification of the title from the Press Registrar or restricted to the identity of the person who has claimed to be the publisher/owner and the printer of the person including the existence of the press.

[31] Proviso to Section 6 has unambiguously stipulated that where any declaration is made or subscribed under Section 5 in respect of a newspaper, the declaration shall be authenticated when the Magistrate will on inquiry from the Press Registrar be satisfied that the newspaper as proposed to be published does not bear a title which is the same or similar to that of a newspaper published either in the same language or in the same State. But, this court is shocked to notice the District Magistrate has assumed the power of directing an inquiry in respect of antecedent of the person or how many criminal actions and civil actions are pending against him. These are not only unwarranted but completely extraneous so far the process of authentication of the declaration is concerned. This court does not have any hesitation to hold the District Magistrate is overstepped his jurisdiction of inquiry. His inquiry should have been restricted in terms of the proviso to Section 6 of the PRB act. This court does not have any hesitation at the same time to hold that so far the cancellation is concerned, the Press and Registration Appellate Board did not interfere but they have directed the District Magistrate to consider the fresh declaration of the petitioner within the parameters of law and to take a decision whether to authenticate the declaration or not.

[32] In this regard, this court is not oblivious to observe that our Constitution tilts heavily for protection of freedom of expression which includes the freedom of press. Thus, no person can be allowed to tweak the law or to act arbitrarily by completely brushing aside the law. Hence, this court is constrained to interfere with the reports of the Superintendent of Police or of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate as those are uncalled for. But the District Magistrate or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate can direct inquiry for the purpose as discussed above. The report of such inquiry can be considered by the District Magistrate while authenticating a declaration. For violation of provisions of the PRB Act, the penal provisions are provided under Part-IV of the PRB Act. The procedure as laid down is a complete code. No other procedure as provided in the statute to take can be followed action under Section 8B of the PRB Act.

[33] In the context, this court is of the view that the District Magistrate has inalienable statutory duty to discharge when a fresh declaration is filed by a person having a newspaper registered with the Press Registrar in respect authentication. For authentication, he may initiated a limited inquiry as provided under proviso to Section 6 of the PRB Act. But neither the District Magistrate nor the Sub-Divisional Magistrate can consider the extraneous materials to stall the authentication of the declaration. Those authorities do not have any right to trample or restrict the constitutional right of expression. The District Magistrate or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate while exercising their power under Sections 5 and 6 and of the PRB Act, they should conscious of limit of their jurisdiction as regards the inquiry. That jurisdiction is well demarcated under proviso to Section 6 of the PRB Act. Having observed thus, the District Magistrate is directed to take up the latest declaration filed by the petitioner for purpose of authentication and take the decision within 15 days from the day of having a copy from the petitioner. It is also made clear, if the declaration is authenticated the petitioner will have right to publish his newspaper under name and style of Pratibadi Kalam.

This observation is made without prejudice to any action that might be taken for non-compliance of the direction of the Press and Registration Appellate Board.

[34] In terms of the above, this petition stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Records as produced by Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A. are returned.

It is needless to say, in view of the direction as made above, the order dated 31.01.2019, passed by the District Magistrate, West Tripura is set aside and quashed.