Girivartha vs The State of Karnataka and Others

A.S. Bopanna, J—The petitioner is before this Court seeking for issue of mandamus to direct the second respondent to reinclude the name of ''Girivartha'' in the media list as per the report of the District Media Committee, Chickmagalur dated 13.09.2013 as at Annexure-L to the petition. The petitioner is also seeking for issue of a direction to the second respondent to continue to place orders for publishing advertisements and also giving facilities under the SC/ST quota for the special advertisement.

The petitioner claims that the newspaper having circulation in the district was included in the Media list. Since subsequently the name of the petitioner had been deleted, the petitioner had made applications seeking inclusion of the name. The petitioner is presently relying on the report of the District Media Committee dated 13.09.2013 to contend that the respondents have to take note of the same and include the name of the petitioner in the media list and also provide advertisement to the petitioner.

The respondents have filed their objection statement indicating that the said report cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of including the name of the petitioner''s newspaper in the media list. It is contended that the registration certificate relied upon by the petitioner is dated 11.12.2012 and as such there are no details with regard to the newspaper being registered earlier and the petitioner being the owner of the same. In that light, it is contended that the prayer made by the petitioner is liable to be rejected.

In the light of the contention, a perusal of the petition papers would no doubt indicate that the committee through its meeting dated 13.09.2013 has recommended the consideration of the case of the petitioner since the committee had noticed the circulation of the newspaper during the last six months. Despite the same, what is necessary to be noticed is that the respondents have contended that the ownership prior to the same has not been established. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, the contention in that regard is that since there was a fire accident, the documents were destroyed and therefore, the same could not be furnished.

The respondents have however contended that there are contradictory reports with regard to the accidents inasmuch as the Department concerned has issued the endorsement that no document was destroyed while the Police Inspector has stated in the report that the documents were also destroyed in the accident.

Be that as it may, the petitioner relies on the certificate of registration dated 11.12.2012. From the said document, it is pointed out that the registration number of the newspaper is shown as 4176/1962 which would indicate that the registration was made in the year 1962. If that be the position, even if the original documents relating to the same has been lost by the petitioner in the fire accident stated to have occurred, it would be still open for the petitioner to secure the necessary documents from the concerned department to indicate that the newspaper had been registered in the year 1962 or in any event, prior to 11.12.2012.

If that be the position, in addition to the report relied on by the petitioner, the petitioner would also have to rely upon the copies of the documents to indicate the presence of the newspaper during the earlier periods as sought by the respondents. Therefore though at this juncture, this Court cannot direct the second respondent to reinclude the name of ''Girivartha'' in the media list, certainly the petitioner should be granted an opportunity to furnish further documents to the second respondent who would thereafter keep in view the report and the other documents and take a decision in that regard.

Reserving such liberty, the petition stands disposed of.