1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No.4579 OF 2017

(Arising out of SLP(C)No.9640/2017 (CC No.5802)

JAGDISH NARAYAN SHUKLA

........APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF UP & ORS.

.......RESPONDENTS

O R D E R

1.

Delay condoned.

2.

Leave granted.

3.

A petition filed before the High Court, as a Public

Interest Litigation, was dismissed on 30.08.2016. In fact, the

High Court went to the extent of recording, that hearing the

appellant would be a mere waste of time. A number of reasons were

given, even on merits, for declining to entertain the petition.

4.

Dissatisfied with the order passed by the High Court

dated 30.08.2016, the appellant has approached this Court under

Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

5.

During the course of hearing, the attention of the

learned counsel for the appellant was drawn to the factual

position, placed on the record of the High Court, through the

counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4

namely, on behalf of the Principal Secretary to the Government,

Digitally signed by

SATISH KUMAR YADAV

Date: 2017.03.30

17:39:47 TLT

Reason:

Signature Not Verified

2

Department of Information and Public Relations; the Chief Secretary

to the Government of Uttar Pradesh; and the Director, Information

and Public Relations of the Government of Uttar Pradesh, wherein it

was expressly averred as under:

“4. That the petitioner by his own admission is the

owner and editor of daily newspaper “Nishpaksh

Pratidin” and fortnightly magazine “Akhir Kab Tak” and

hence the petitioner is the interest (sic) person as

he has been getting advertisement for the aforesaid

two publications from the Department of Information

and Public Relations.

5.

That the instant writ petition has been filed for

oblique motive and purpose for obtaining maximum

advertisement for the two abovenamed publications and

this writ petition has been preferred to create undue

pressure by adopting arm twisting tactics.

6.

That the petitioner’s aforesaid two publications

are not found on any bookstall in the entire city of

Lucknow or any other city except few stalls. The

aforesaid two publications are being published

primarily to create pressure so as to enable the

petitioner to blackmail bonafide persons and

authorities.

7.

That in this regard it would be pertinent to submit

here that in the year 1988 the petitioner obtained a

loan of Rs.5 lacs from the Information Department on

account of his political connections and for the

repayment of the said loan the petitioner manoeuvred

government order dated 9^th June, 1988 that the loan

would be repaid from his bills towards the publication

namely “Nishpaksh Pratidin”.

Subsequently the

petitioner again obtained a loan of Rs.5 lacs for the

same publication namely “Nishpaksh Pratidin” and for

payment of the same the petitioner manoeuvred another

government order dated 20^th August, 1988 that the

repayment of the loan would be adjusted from his bills

toward the advertisement published in his daily namely

“Nishpaksh Pratidin”. Subsequently the petitioner

manoeuvred and obtained government order dated 27^th

October, 1994, that the aforesaid two loans amounting

to Rs.10 lacs would be interest free. A true copy of

the aforesaid government order dated 9^th June, 1988,

20^th August, 1988 and 27^th October, 1994 are being

annexed with as Annexure No.CA-2, 3 and 4 respectively

to this counter affidavit.

8.

That the petitioner is primarily a politician

3

and has contested the election for the office of

Member Legislative Assembly in the year 1996 and in

2002 on a National Congress Party ticket; thereafter

the petitioner contested the election for the office

of Member of Parliament from Sitapur in the year 2009

on the ticket of the National Congress Party.

9.

That it is