Dated 5-9-2002


Appeal of Shri P. V. Dakshinamurthy, General Secretary, Chennai Magana Karuneegar Sangam, Chennai Against order dated 22.5.2001 passed by the chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai



Versus

  1. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
    Egmore, Chennai.
     

  2. Shri P.V. Sundramurthy
    Representative, Chennai Mahana
    Karuneegar Sangam, Chennai.
     

  3. The Registrar
    Registrar of Newspapers for India,
    New Delhi.
     

  4. Shri R.C. Sekharan
    Secretary
    Chennai Mahana
    Karuneegar, Sangam,
    No.18 Kellys Roads,
    Kilpauk, Chennai 600010
     

CORAM:

Justice K. Jayachandra Reddy                        ..............................Chairman

Mr. Sunil Dang                                               ...............................Member
 
Appearance :  
  Shri P. V. Dakshinamurthy
General Secretary, Chennai Magana
karuneegar Sangam Chennai.
(Appellant)

Shri P. R. Kovilan Poongkuntran and
Shri T. Harish Kumar (Advocates for Applellant)

Shri. V. Balaji ( Advocate for Resp. No. 2)
Shri Karamvir Rawat, ( on behalf of Resp No.2)

Shri R. K. Aggarwal,
Asstt. Press Registrar (RNI)
 
 

Order passed on 12-8-2002
 
 

By this appeal, the appellant has impugned the order of the Chief Metroplotan Magistrate, Egmore (Chennai) accepting the declaration filed by one Shri P.T. Sambandam as Publisher of Karunega Mithran (owner of Chennai Magana Karuneegar Sangam) and ordering authentication of the same, on the ground that the appellant had raised a dispute in connection with the office -bearers of the association viz., Chennai Magana Karunageer Sangam. We have come to know that a suit is pending in a Court of law in respect of this matter. If the contention of the respondent is upheld by the civil court, the present appeal will automatically become infructuous. In any case, the matter being sub-judice we have no right to interfere. The appellant's prayer for being allowed to publish the newspaper  concerned till the disposal of the civil suit cannot be accepted for the same reason.

In the view of the above, we are constrained to hold that the present appeal is not maintainable. The same is accordingly dismissed.


 

(Sunil Dang)
Member

(K. jayachandra Reddy )
Chairman