The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court must apply the relevant legal provisions and consider the scope of application of the Information Technology Act and relevant rules when issuing orders related to the blocking of access to information.

SIDDHARTHA CHATTOPADHYAY, J.

1. Being dissatisfied with the order dated 18.06.2017, passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, the present petitioner has prayed for quashing of the said order. By the said impugned order, the learned C.M.M has directed the present petitioner to remove the entire Facebook pages available at “The Darjeeling Chronicle”. Pursuant to that order of the learned C.M.M, the local police has sent a notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C on 19.06.2007 and asked the petitioner to immediately block and remove the relevant pages.

2. The petitioner herein has challenged the said order as well as the action of the local police on following grounds:—

(1) That the C.M.M has passed the impugned order just mechanically and without any application of mind.

(2) The said order was beyond the jurisdiction of the said Court in view of Rule 10 of Information Technology Rules 2009.

(3) That the learned C.M.M has acted without adhering to the relevant Sections 177 to 184 Cr.P.C which deals with the jurisdiction of a criminal court,

(4) That the learned trial court ought to have considered Sections 95 and 96 Cr.P.C, since it is a special statue.

(5) Relevant rules i.e. IT (Procedures and Safeguards for blocking for access to information by public) rules were not complied with.

3. At the time of hearing, learned Counsel Mr. Luthra appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that no F.I.R was registered and in spite of that learned trial court has passed an order to that effect. The impugned order bears the words “G.D Extract No. 582, dated 17.06.2017”

4. On perusal of the impugned order I find that there is no registration of F.I.R and the learned C.M.M has passed the order in connection with Cyber Police Station G.D Entry No. 582 dated 17.06.2017 After going through the first part of the impugned order, I find that there was a prayer for issuance of notice under Rule 10 of Information Technology Rules 2009. The Investigating Officer has mentioned that due to such contents of Facebook, there may be some subversive activities against the Government, and there is reasonable apprehension that it may invite other turbulent activities in that area. The learned C.M.M has passed the order “the prayer of Investigating Officer is allowed.” No reason is mentioned. From the second part of the order, it appears that the O/C cyber-crime has prayed for issuance of notice under Rule 10 of Information and Technology Rules 2009, upon the group co-ordinator Cyber Law Division, Department of Electronics and Information Technology, 6, C.G.O Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003 for blocking of the Facebook page and the links. This time also the learned C.M.M has passed the order “the prayer of Investigating Officer is allowed.” Similarly no reason is there. Therefore, it is crystal clear that there is no application of mind by the learned C.M.M It is perhaps needless to say that an order without assigning any reason is an order non-est. Therefore, the grievance of the petitioner that the learned trial court did not apply his mind is amply justified. There being no registration of F.I.R, how the Investigating Officer has made a prayer before the learned C.M.M?

5. Now, this court is under an obligation to see whether the procedural aspects have ben complied with or not. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the provisions laid down in Information and Technology (procedure and safeguards for blocking for access of information by public) Rules 2009 have not been complied with. According to him, it ought to have been routed through by the designated officer. To come to a finding relevant provisions of the said rules are to be recapitulated. Rule 3 deals with designated officer. It says ‘The Central Government shall designate by notification in Official Gazette, an officer of the Central Government not below the rank of a Joint Secretary, as the “Designated Officer”, for the purpose of issuing direction