Government's arbitrary categorization of newspapers violates constitutional protections of equality and freedom of speech, requiring fair consideration of applications for advertisement status.

1. After hearing both Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Mr. B.C. Das, the learned Advocate General, Tripura, representing the State - respondents, I am of the considered view that this writ petition can be remanded to the Director of Information, Cultural Affairs and Tourism Department and Head of Circulation Committee, Government of Tripura (respondent No. 2) for fresh consideration of the case in accordance with law.

2. But before that, I still think it necessary to refer some of the important facts of the case. The petitioner is the owner, Printer, Publisher and Editor of a local daily, namely, "Dainik Ganadoot", which is printed and published from Agartala in Bengali language. According to the petitioner, his newspaper is one of the most popular newspaper in Tripura with large circulation. It is his case that its role in enlightening the public opinion against corruption and misrule and its espousal of public cause from time - to - time ever since its inception in 1968 have incurred the wrath of the State Government. In the advertisement policy notified on 20-11-1985, four classes of publications were envisaged, i.e. (1) Dailies; (2) By - weeklies and Tri - Weeklies; (3) Weeklies and (4) Fortnightlies / Monthlies / Bi - Monthlies and others. Daily newspapers were further categorized into "A" category, "B" category and "C" category in accordance with their circulation, size and pages. For equitable distribution of advertisement to the newspapers, it was provided, inter alia, that a rotation was to be maintained to ensure that the newspapers belonging to category "A" would get 40% of the advertisements. Different rates of payment were also prescribed for different categories of publication in the said advertisement policy.

3. It would appear that the respondent No. 1 issued the Notification dated 29-2-1988 stipulating that pending finalization of the new advertisement policy, the Government would follow the existing Policy Rules subject to directions and observations made by the erstwhile Gauhati High Court in Civil Rule No. 889/1987 and that every effort was to be made to equalize the quantum of advertisement so far issued to the newspapers belonging to "A" category. Rate of display advertisement was also revised by the said notification. In the civil rule in question, the erstwhile Gauhati High Court held that discriminatory allotment of Government advertisements to different newspapers of same category would impair freedom of the press. "Dainik Ganadoot" was initially categorized as "B" category newspaper and was, thereafter up - graded to an "A" category newspaper with effect from 18-4-1988 on the basis of the Notification dated 18-4-1988 issued by the Principal Secretary, Govt. of Tripura in the Department of ICAT. The respondent No. 1 subsequently by the Notification dated 23-10-1998 published the Tripura Advertisement Policy Rules, 1998 in supersession of the previous advertisement policy and the amendments thereof and the same came into force on 1-12-1998. However, the State - respondents refused to categorize the newspaper of the petitioner as "A - 1" under the new Rules and rather categorized it as "A" category, which was not the top most category thereunder; this amounted to down - gradation of his newspaper. This prompted the petitioner to file W.P.(C) No. 360 of 2000 before this Court, which by the order dated 13-2-2002 passed appropriate directions whereupon the State - respondents provisionally granted A - 1 category to his newspaper vide the Memorandum dated 18-5-2002. However, to the consternati