B K Chanel Network vs State Of Gujarat

Ashutosh J. Shastri, J

[1] Heard Mr.Virat Popat, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Sahil Trivedi, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on

behalf of the contesting respondents.

[2] Draft amendment is allowed. The same is ordered to be carried out during the course of the day.

[3] On the issue of interim relief, Mr.Virat Popat, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the impugned orders in

origin dated 25.06.2021 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Deesa is without the authority of law and by resorting to combined powers

under the provisions of Cinematography Act, 1952 and Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, the order of conviction came to be passed

for breach of the said provisions. By referring to Sections 14 and 15 of the Cinematography Act, 1952, a contention is raised that the Sub Divisional

Magistrate has no jurisdiction to pass an order. In addition to it, Mr.Popat, learned advocate has also drawn the attention of the relevant provisions

from the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 and has submitted that Section 18 is a charging Section whereby cognizance of offence

can be only upon complaint in writing made by the authorized officer otherwise no cognizance can be taken by the Court. Section 16 is dealing with

the punishment for contravention of provisions of this Act and as such, in any case, looking to the scheme of both the Acts, according to Mr.Popat,

learned advocate, the Sub Divisional Magistrate is not competent to exercise the powers and as such, the impugned order dated 25.06.2021 passed by

the Sub Divisional Magistrate reflecting on page 91 of the petition compilation is without jurisdiction.

[4] Mr.Popat, learned advocate has further submitted that it is very unfortunate that when this Court was seized with the matter and the learned

Assistant Government Pleader has taken time to get proper instructions in a hot hurried manner, the District Magistrate, Banaskantha has rejected the

request for renewal of license. In complete negation of principles of natural justice, a substantial reliance is made by this subsequent order is of an

order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, who has in fact no authority to pass an order and as such, this is nothing but a clear act of arbitrariness

on the part of the authority. The very exercise of jurisdiction by the authority is politically motivated since the publication is made with regard a local

MLA and his alleged conduct and as such, the very exercise against the petitioner is ill-founded and deserves to be corrected.

[5] It has been contended by learned advocate Mr.Popat that the petitioner is a well reputed channel networks in the area, having more than 3 crores

viewers and the petitioner is not having any criminal antecedents of any nature. It is only at the behest of local MLA, who is stated to be a strong

political figure in the area, the authority has assumed the jurisdiction and passed an order and as such, the very exercise against the petitioner is under

dictation and not with an independent application of mind.

[6] Mr.Popat, learned advocate has submitted that rejection of request of renewal is practically a non-speaking order and is passed with an intent to

over reach the process of present proceedings and as such, a serious view be taken against the officer concerned, who made such attempt. The very

exercise of decision making process is ill-founded and as such, the relief prayed for as an interim measure deserves to be granted.

[7] Mr.Popat, learned advocate, under the instructions, has shown an inclination to file an undertaking that the petitioner will not publish any

defamatory news of any nature in any manner with regard to the present controversy till the petition gets decided and for that purpose, he would

submit an undertaking to be placed on record and after submitting this, a request is made to grant the relief, as prayed for, since the entire business is

at standstill which would create irreversible situation and damage to the petitioner.

[8] As against this, Mr.Sahil Trivedi, learned Assistant Government Pleader initially has resisted the petition by submitting that the order of rejection of

renewal may be is passed on 06.07.2021 but the same has been passed in due discharge of the discretion vested in the authority and therefore, there is

no mala fide against the petitioner. According to Mr.Trivedi, learned Assistant Government Pleader, the petitioner has made an attempt to mixup the

two provisions of separate act which are running in a different direction. For the purpose of canvassing the submission, a reference is made to certain

contents which are stated in affidavit-in-reply, filed at page 455 fo the petition compilation and has stated that renewal request was being dealt with

much prior to the petitioner. It is merely incidental that rejection took place during the pendency of the petition. Mr. Trivedi, learned Assistant

Government Pleader has submitted that it is not corrected that no opportunity was given to the petitioner in fact there were two complaints received

against the petitioner and upon examination of both the contents of complaints, the orders have been passed by the competent authority and therefore,

incidentally the one complaint which is related to local MLA it is not open for the petitioner to given colour of political mala fides in fact there is a

breach of the order of terms of the license which has been taken note of and upon that the order is passed. That being the situation, hardly any merit

in the petition. For the purpose of strengthening his submission, Mr. Trivedi, learned Assistant Government Pleader has relied upon a circular dated

01.09.2001 indicating that the Sub Divisional Magistrate is invested with the powers and as such, the order passed by him is well within the jurisdiction

and authority.

[9] However, after submitting and canvassing the contentions, as state above, Mr. Trivedi, learned Assistant Government Pleader has requested that if

the petitioner is submitting an undertaking before the Court, not to publish any defamatory news related to the present controversy, the same shall be

taken on record and in case of breach of such, the interim protection, if granted, be vacated forthwith or liberty be given for requesting to vacate the

interim relief and thereby, has left it to the discretion of the Court and has stated that no reasons be assigned for grant of any interim relief at this

stage since merit is not be analyzed at this juncture.

[10] In view of the aforesaid submissions, having been made before the Court and the Court is called upon not to assign any reason for grant of any

interim relief at this stage since the Court is satisfied that matter requires consideration, following order is passed:

Rule returnable on 23.08.2021 and by way of interim relief, the order dated 25.06.2021 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Deesa as well as the

order dated 06.07.2021 are stayed till next date of hearing on a condition that the petitioner shall file an undertaking before this Court within a period of

three days from today to the effect as suggested by the learned advocate for the petitioner and broadly concurred by learned Assistant Government

Pleader, the petitioner shall not publish any defamatory news directly or indirectly in any manner with regard to the present controversy contained in

the petition and such undertaking shall be placed on record of the case. It is made clear that in case of any breach either of undertaking or violation of

any terms or any of the provision of Relevant Act, it would be open for the authority to immediately move the Court for seeking vacation of interim

relief as granted hereby.

Direct service is permitted.