AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Chandru, J.—The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition seeking for a direction to the respondents from in any way interfering with the petitioner''s lawful business in printing materials under the name "Three Kona (Sarayau) Computer Printers, at door No. 32/58A at Keela Pallaivasal Street, in Paramakudi.
The Writ Petition was admitted on 16.12.2005. Pending the Writ Petition, this Court only ordered notice in the petition for interim injunction.
Pursuant to the notice, the third respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 04.01.2006 justifying the action initiated by them. Even a copy of the special communication sent by the second respondent to the first respondent dated 14.12.2005 has also been filed by the respondents.
The petitioner is having a printing press in Shop No. 8/140 at Keela Pallivasal Street in Parmakudi. He has also filed a declaration u/s 4(1) Press and Registration of Books Act,1867. (for short "PRBA").
The case of the petitioner is that in the printing press there are seven employees. They used to print wall posters on orders being placed by the customers. He stated that he does not make any discrimination between various groups whether it is based on religion or politics in the matter of printing matters. He further stated that a "Women Self Help Group" attached to Seyyamangalam Village (coming under the jurisdiction of Abiramam Police Station) came to the petitioner for printing a wall poster explaining the corrupt practices prevailing in the Ration Shop at Seyyamangalam. As per the order given by the party, he printed a wall poster strictly according to law. He also put the name of his press at the bottom of the wall poster.
It was stated that the petitioner was summoned by the Station House Officer, Abiramam Police Station. He was produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Kamudi, on the basis of an FIR in Crime No. 43 of 2005 dated 05.05.2005. It was alleged that the petitioner has committed an offence u/s 3 r/w.12 of the PRBA. Since no charge sheet was filed, an application was filed u/s 258 Cr.P.C invoking Section 468(2) Cr.P.C to stop the proceedings by the petitioner and the said matter is pending.
On 14.11.2005, one association by name "Aathi Tamilar Peravi" approached the petitioner to print a wall poster about their proposed agitation to conduct ''Rail Roko'' (Stopping the Rails) in the Paramakudi Railway Station on 28.11.2005. The petitioner took the draft of the poster matter and sent it for the approval of Police attached to the CID Branch, Paramakudi. This practice according to him has been routinely followed by the orders of the police. It is stated that one Mr. Vellaichamy, CID Police took the draft matter and consulted the third respondent. After seeing the draft, the petitioner was called to the police station at about 7.30 p.m. on 14.11.2005 and he was severely reprimanded by the Inspector of Police. He was threatened that if he prints any poster for any organisations, it may attract Section 153-A IPC and cases will be booked against him. This was told to the petitioner under the instructions issued by the first and second respondents.
The petitioner pleaded that he had not committed any offence. But, provoked by his reply, the respondent detained him in the Police Station till midnight. Only when the news was spread in the Town and as there was threat of protest, the petitioner was let out. However, the police action against the petitioner was prominently published in a Tamil Weekly Magazine by name "Nakkeeran" in its issue dated 27-30 Nov, 2005 under the caption "Should this happen even to a Ruling Partyman - Terrorism against a printing press." In that news magazine, photographs of the petitioner as well as all the respondents were published as part of its news feature.
Enraged by this publication, the third respondent warned the petitioner that he should not print any wall poster relating to any "kwpay;" (picketing). If he prints any such wall poster, his press will be closed and many cases will be foisted against him. The petitioner sent a representation to the Chief Minister Grievance Cell, which was also received by the Cell on 22.11.2005. Thereafter, the second respondent, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Paramakudi, called the petitioner and threatened him that should he print any matter containing the word "kwpay;"", (picketing), cases will be foisted against him and he should desist from doing so. Since he never got any reply from the respondents, he filed the present Writ Petition.
Even before coming to this Court, the petitioner had sent a letter to the first respondent herein (by registered post with acknowledgment due) making certain allegations. It was stated by him that in the previous years if any printing matter came to his press as per the instructions given by the respondent, he used to send it to the CID Branch attached to the Paramakudi Police Station for their information and approval.
The petitioner also claimed that he was the past Secretary of "Amma Peravi" of Paramakudi Panchayat Union. The petitioner alleges the action of the respondent infringes his constitutional right guaranteed under Article 19(ii)(g) of the Constitution.
In answer to these allegations, the third respondent stated that the petitioner was in the habit of not printing the name and address of the press in the wall posters printed by him. This is stoutly denied by the petitioner. A copy of the wall poster for the Rail roko agitation conducted by Aathi Tamilar Peravi, Ramanathapuram District was also enclosed in the typed set and it contained the name of the printing press at its bottom.
The following averments are made in the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent and in paragraph Nos.7,11.2 and 13, it is stated as follows:
I received a secret information that notices were being printed in the press of the petitioner and then notices contained information that was against the law of the nation and which might hamper the railway transport in Tamil Nadu. The information was found confirmed when S. Viduthalai Sekar S/o Selvam, District joint Secretary of Athi Tamilar Peravai of Ramanathapuram District approached me on 15.11.2005 with the request for permission for conducting rail blocking. His request contained the proof of notice printed in the petitioners press. If these posters were printed and were distributed, irreparable damages would have taken place to the transport machinery of the nation and would cause severe inconvenience to the general public. Only because the reason, I instructed him not to print any matter which might endanger the transport machinery of the nation through phone on 15.11.2005. On enquiry, it is also revealed that the petitioner approached Thiru. Vellaisamy, Gr. I Police of SB-CID of Ramanathapuram District, for getting permission for printing the above poster. Thiru.Vellaisamy instructed him to go and meet the Inspector of Police, Paramakudi Town, since he was not concerned with law and order. Eventhough he was not at all being called, he came to Paramakudi Town Police Station of his own. On knowing the information that permission was not granted to the Athi Tamilar Peravai for conducting rail blocking and under standing the consequences of distributing the posters of such kind in general public, the petitioner accepted not to print the above said notices. Hence the allegation of the petitioner that he was detained in the police station, is completely wrong and baseless.
ii) ...In the interest of general public and maintaining public order alone, the petitioner was instructed not to print the notice of rail blocking of Athi Tamilar Peravai of Ramanathapuram. The instructions was given to the petitioner only on considering the degree of the harm likely to be caused to the citizens, if the notice was printed and circulated.
It is respectfully submitted that when the notices of bus blocking and rail blocking are allowed to be printed and circulated, party cadres or people of particular groups/castes will gather in large numbers towards blocking the road and the rail. Generally the party cadres and people are peaceful as long as they are alone. When they gather in a large scale, the miscreants and anti social elements taken advantages of Mob Psychology and indulge themselves in unlawful activities which ultimately result in breach of peace, tranquility and public order. Hence, no mala fide discretion or irrelevant considerations were exercised by the respondent either in registering the case in Abiramam PS against the petitioner or in providing him the instruction of not to print the notice of blocking of rail by Athi Tamilar Peravai.
Even in the confidential communication sent by the second respondent (the Deputy Superintendent of Police), it is stated that the Inspector had told him that he told the petitioner not to print anything against the Government or insulting any religion for printing posters regularly. For "Bus Roko" and "Rail Roko" he should seek permission from the police department. It is also admitted that the said Constable, Vellaichamy attached to CID Wing, when asked about the printing of Aathi Tamilar Peravi''s, he told him to speak to the Inspector.
It is surprising that in the counter affidavit the respondents should state that no poster should be printed against Government thereby making to appear as if the Police had taken the job of protecting the party in power.
Therefore, it is clear that the respondents had brought pressure against the petitioner from printing wall posters either against the Government or regarding picketing. When he printed a poster in respect of an agitation conducted by Aathi Tamilar Peravi, he was threatened by the respondents and was dragged to the Police Station. Not only he was threatened with further action in case he prints such wall posters, in the counter affidavit justification is made for making requests. Apart from that, the petitioner''s allegation that every wall poster to be printed was to take it the CID Police and must get prior approval before it publication, was not denied by the respondents.
The stand of the respondents thus cumulatively seen from the affidavits and by the special communication, that the respondents running a parallel State apparatus in Paramakudi Town. As to who gave them such authority for doing pre-censorship of printing materials, is not explained by them in their counter affidavit.
If such things are allowed, it is needless to state that it will only bring back the situation existed at the time national emergency (1975-1977) and it will be a mockery of the guarantees found as fundamental rights in Part-III of the Constitution. If the petitioner has committed violates of any law, nothing prevented the respondents from taking appropriate action. But, on the contrary, seeking for prior screening of materials before printing it, is never contemplated under any law in India and it is surprising that pre-censorships are done with impugnity. News items about road roko or bus roko have been published in the newspapers on the basis of statements given by various political parties, NGOs and Trade unions day in and day out. Such News have been telecast by electronic media. One wonders what actions were taken by the respondents against such publications, which are also circulated in Paramakudi town. It must also be noted that a wall poster is also a mode of communication covered by the constitutional guarantee under Artilce 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
There are so many printing presses in the Town and District. When similar materials are printed by them why the respondents have picked up the petitioner alone is not explained. Neither the Press and Registration of Books Act contemplates any pre-censorship nor any other provisions of IPC gives such powers to the respondents. This Court cannot allow such blatant violations by the respondents and a constitutional infringement of petitioner''s rights.
Under the circumstances, the Writ Petition stands allowed. The respondents are restrained from forcing the petitioner from printing wall posters only after getting prior approval or that he should not print particular type of wall posters. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed.