Dilip Kumar v. The Union Of India And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10449 of 2014 =========================================================== Dilip Kumar, Son of Late Sobaran Singh, resident of Village & P.O. Mirza Nagar, P.S. Mahua, District- Vaishali.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The Union of India through the Principal Secretary, Information and Broadcasting Department, Government of India, New Delhi.

2. M/s India News Channel, through it's Editor-in-Chief, having address, 276, Media House, Capt. Gaur Marg, Srihivaspuri, Near Okhla Bus Depot, P.S. Okhla, New Delhi.

3. The Managing Director, India News T.V. Channel, having address, 276, Media House, Capt. Gaur Marg, Srihivaspuri, near Okhla Bus Depot, P.S. Okhla, New Delhi.

.... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Nityanand, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Ms. Kanak Verma, C.G.C.

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 15-12-2016 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The present application has been filed by the petitioner, who claims to be a follower of Sri Asha Ram Bapu, a self proclaimed spiritual leader, for restraining respondents no. 2 and 3, from reporting against him.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he, being a follower of Sri Asha Ram Bapu, has been hurt by the broadcast aired by the respondents no. 2 and 3 and the same comes under the category of offence as defined in Section 295-A of the Indian Penal Code. It was further submitted that the petitioner may

Patna High Court CWJC No.10449 of 2014 dt.15-12-2016 2/2 be awarded compensation for the hurt caused due to such telecast. Learned counsel for the Union of India raised a preliminary objection and submitted that, at best, the case can be one of defamation, for which the petitioner is required to approach the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for any relief. Having considered the rival contentions, this Court does not find any ground to interfere in the matter in terms of the relief prayed for in the writ petition. Moreover, the petitioner has no genuine or bona fide cause of action.

Accordingly, the writ application, being misconceived, stands dismissed.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) P. Kumar AFR/NAFR U