IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.24074 OF 2018

16^th February, 2026 Between:

Mohammed Khallel Ullah Shareef.

…Petitioner AND The State of Telangana and 3 Others.

…Respondents

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief:

“…Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Orders, Direction or Directions to declare the action of the 2nd respondent vide proceedings dated 18.06.2018 in No.K/1342/PSB/29/2018/4695 whereby he refused to recommend for the allotment of the title to the petitioner for publishing a weekly Urdu Newspaper on the ground of his involvement in Crime No.228 of 2016 on the file of P.S. Hussaini Alam, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and to issue a consequential direction to the 2nd and 3rd respondents to act in accordance with law for recommending the allotment of title to the petitioner for publication of a weekly Urdu Newspaper without reference to the Crime No.228 of 2016 on the file of P.S. Hussaini Alam, and pass.......”

2. Heard Mr.Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr.D.Pradeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Ms.B Kavitha Yadav, learned Standing Counsel for Union of India/respondent No.3

3.1. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contends that, under the provisions of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 (for short, “the Act of 1867”), there was no statutory authority conferred upon respondent No. 2 to make any comment or recommendation regarding the allotment of a title, much less to refuse or decline to recommend such allotment. It is submitted that, notwithstanding the absence of such power, the impugned communication dated 18.06.2018 was issued, whereby respondent No. 2 declined to recommend allotment of title to the petitioner, thereby acting in excess of jurisdiction.

3.2. Elaborating further, learned Senior Counsel places reliance upon Section 6 of the Act of 1867, which mandates that the publisher or printer of a newspaper shall make a declaration before a designated authority, and that the designated authority shall authenticate such declaration. It is submitted that the statutory role of the designated authority is confined to authentication of the declaration and certification that it was made before him. The provision does not contemplate any inquiry into the antecedents of the applicant, nor does it authorize the authority to record comments, objections, or recommendations regarding allotment of title.

3.3. Reference is also made to Section 19(c) of the Act of 1867, which provides for issuance of a Certificate of Registration by the Press Registrar upon receipt of a valid declaration in respect of a newspaper. It is further contended that the relevant Rules framed under the Act stipulate that once a declaration is made before the designated authority, the Press Registrar shall, as soon as possible, issue the Certificate of Registration. According to the petitioner, the statutory scheme does not envisage any evaluative or discretionary role for respondent No. 2 beyond authentication of the declaration.

3.4. In that view of the matter, it is argued that the recommendation made by respondent No. 2 not to allot the title to the petitioner is ultra vires the Act of 1867, contrary to the statutory framework, and therefore liable to be set aside.

3.5. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that, during the pendency of the writ petition, Parliament enacted the Press and Registration of Periodicals Act, 2023, which now governs the field relating to registration of periodicals. It is pointed out that Section 7(4) of the 2023 Act authorizes the prescribed authority to furnish comments or a “No Objection” on an application for registration. Thus, under the new enactment, the authority is expressly empowered to make comments on the application.

3.6. However, it is contended that the petitioner’s applicat