PETITIONER:
NITIN RASHMIKANT KANTAWALA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 31/01/1997
BENCH:
S.C. AGRAWAL, S. SAGHIR AHMAD
ACT
HEADNOTE
JUDGMENT
ORDER
Special leave granted.
This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated September 16, 1994 whereby the Writ Petition No. 25 of 1992 filed by the appellant has been dismissed.
The said Writ petition relates to the enforcement of the "Delivery to Mail Order 1991" (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1991 Order’) issued by the Director General of Posts and Telegraphs in exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (3) of Section 21 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) vide notification dated May 29, 1991. The 1991 Order was issued to deal with the growing problem of delivery of mail in high-rise multi-storeyed buildings that have come up as a result of vertical expansion of the large towns in the country. It provided for delivery of unregistered mail by the Post Office in he mail box of the addressee to be put at the ground floor of the building in which the addressee is located. By the impugned judgment, the High Court has upheld the validity of the said order. While the matter was pending in this Court, the 1991 Order has been superseded by the "Delivery of Postal Articles Order, 1996"(hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1996 Order’) which has also been issued by the Director General of Posts and Telegraphs in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of the Act vide notification dated November 24, 1995.
We have heard the appellant in person as well as Shri P.P. Malhotra, the learned senior counsel appearing for the Union of India, and Shri D.N. Mishra, the learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay.
The appellant has made a grievance mainly with reference to the conditions in the city of Bombay and especially in respect of the existing buildings. It has been urged that in most of the existing multi-storeyed buildings no space has been provided for keeping mail boxes for the residents and since the facilities of mail boxes cannot be provided in such buildings, the same should be excluded from the operation of the 1996 Order. As regard the buildings which would be coming up in the future, it has been submitted that necessary provision should be made in the regulations governing grant of sanction of the plan as well as the completion and occupancy certificate to ensure that the suitable provision is made for installing mail boxes in such buildings.
The appellant has also raised a legal submission about the validity of the 1991 Order and has invited our attention to clause (c) of Section 3 of the Act wherein the expressions "in course of transmission by post" and "delivery" have been defined. The submission is that 1991 Order as well as 1996 Order are ultra vires the provisions of the Act because clause (c) of Section 3 of the Act only postulates delivery at the house or office of the addressee, or to the addressee or his servant or agent or other person considered to the authorised to receive the article and does not postulate delivery in other manner and that delivery in a mail box which is not kept in the house or office of the addressee is not permissible under the said provision. We do not find any force in this submission. Under Section 3(c) it is permissible to make delivery of the postal article at the house or office of the addressee. The expression "house or office of the addressee" in Section 3(c) cannot be confined to the part of the building in which the addressee is residing or has his office. The said expression would include the building in which the residence or office of the addressee is situate. The delivery of a postal article in a mail box kept in the building in which the residence or office of the addressee is located has to be treated as delivery at the house or office of the addressee. The provision in the 1996 Order regarding delivery of the postal article in the mail box of the addressee cannot, therefore, be held to be impermissible under Section 3(c) of the Act.
The other question that remains to be considered is whether the provision for having a mail box for the residents in existing buildings in Bombay city which do not have space for keeping mail boxes can be regarded as fair and reasonable. In this regard, it may be mentioned that during the pendency of the Writ Petition in the High Court, a Committee of Members of Parliament was appointed by the Central Government to examine the Mail Box Delivery Scheme in Bombay city. The said Committee submitted its report in November 1992. In its report the Committee has pointed court that the old buildings in congested localities of Bombay mostly consist of ground and four upper floors and their passages are very narrow and that it would be difficult to compel the occupants to receive their mail through mail boxes provided on the ground floor. The Committee felt that it would create great hardship if the scheme is implemented in buildings consisting of ground and four upper floors only which were mostly constructed prior to the year 1940 and are tenanted premises and that in many cases such buildings will have to be exempted from the operation of the scheme. The Committee made the following recommendations:-
"CHAPTER 5 : RECOMMENDATIONS :-
5.1 Considering all the aspects of
the Mail Box Scheme and the
objections of the Citizens
particularly on the ground of lack
of space for putting up Mail Boxes
and appreciating the merits of the
Scheme, the Committee makes the
following recommendations:-
5.2 The Postal authorities may
undertake rigorous campaign to
create awareness among the citizens
regarding the usefulness of the
scheme. Government of Maharashtra
may also be approached for making
appropriate amendments in the
Bombay rent Act to enable tenants
to put up mail box in the common
passages of buildings. Voluntary
acceptance in such cases may be
encouraged by the Postal
Department.
5.3 The Mail Box Scheme should be
introduced in the buildings which
shall be hereinafter constructed
and in the building which are still
under construction. For this
purpose, it is gratifying to note
that the Development Control
Regulations for Greater Bombay 1991
issued by the Urban Development
departments, Government of
Maharashtra, and published in the
Maharashtra Gazette part I Kaukan
Divisional Supplement dated
21.2.1991 contains a provision, ‘a
letter box of appropriate
dimensions shall be provided on the
ground floor of residence,
Commercial buildings with 5 or more
storeys, to the satisfaction of the
commissioner’. The Postal
Department, therefore, may prevail
upon the Municipal Commissioner of
Greater Bombay not to pass any
building proposal unless the
aforesaid condition of the letter
box is complied with and not to
give completion certificate to
buildings under construction till
the aforesaid condition is
satisfied. Thus a good beginning
can be made and in course of time
may many new buildings in Bombay
will have implemented this scheme.
5.4 The Scheme should apply also to
the existing high rise buildings
with 6 storeys (ground + 5 floors)
and more. However in these cases
also where in respect of any
particular building genuine
hardships are placed before the
Postmaster General Bombay or his
authorised nominee and the same are
found to be true the said building
may be exempted from the scheme.
Most of such buildings are on
ownership basis and therefore the
problem of landlord objecting will
not arise. Except the new building
to be constructed as stated in para
5.3 and the high rise buildings as
stated in para 5.4 all the existing
buildings should be exempted from
the scheme.
5.5 As already stated earlier in
para 3.11 while there may be
instances of genuine hardships
likely to arise from the
implementation of the scheme there
are some merits also in the scheme.
The scheme cannot, therefore be
rejected our tight. It will have to
be introduced cautiously without
causing hardship to the people
Public awareness is to be created
while introducing the scheme.
5.6 Adequate time, say 3 months,
may be given to those who are
required to comply with the scheme.
5.7 The Committee also strongly
feels that the approach of the
Ministry of Communications and the
Government of India that Postal
Department is a commercial
department may be reviewed and
revised. Like Health and Education,
it should be considered as a
Department rendering social service
to the society and from that point
of view the general ban on
sanctioning the additional postal
staff particularly the Postmen, and
the strict out on the expenses on
opening of new post offices may be
given up. This Department may be
treated as a department rendering
social service to the citizens at
large, and keeping in view the
essential requirements of the
citizens for maintaining vital
communications and requirements of
the staff for catering to the needs
of the public post offices be given
top priority in the budgetary
provisions of the Government."
Keeping in view the recommendations of the said Committee, by clause 2 of the 1996 Order multi-storeyed buildings having five storeys (ground plus four floors) are excluded from the ambit of the said order. Furthermore, the 1996 Order contains a provision in clause 4 regarding exemption of certain buildings from the ambit of the said order. Clause 4 reads as follows :-
"Clause 4, Power to exempt - Where
there is genuine difficult in
complying with the provisions of
this order in a particular
building, the Chief Post Master
General, Post Master General Senior
Superintendent of Post Offices, or
as the case many be, the
Superintendent of Post Offices, may
for reasons to be recorded in
writing, exempt the said building
from the provisions of this order."
The Department has proposed the following guidelines for exercising the power to relax delivery of postal article under the 1996 Order for existing buildings as per clause 4 of the said order:-
"PROPOSED GUIDELINES FOR EXERCISING
THE POWERS TO RELAX DELIVERY OF
POSTAL ARTICLES ORDER 1995 FOR
EXISTING BUILDINGS AS PROVIDED FOR
IN RULE OF THE ABOVE CITED ORDER.
1. The application could be made
before the Supdt. of Post
Officers/SSPOs/PHG/CPMG by 10.2.97
this date is tentatively fixed for
Bombay and will be decided
separately for each area.
2. The authorised official from the
Post Office would be sent to the
premises within 7 days of receipt
of the application to report on
whether post boxes could be fixed
on the ground floor or find out a
viz media of installation of a
community box for delivery of
postal articles to an authorised
person which could be the caretaker
of the building/society. He will
submit his report within three days
from the date of his visit.
3. The applicant will be given the
extract of report and he may make
his representation against or in
favour within 3 days of the report
and after considering the report of
the authorised offices,
representation, if any, of the
applicant, the authority to which
the application was addressed will
decide the matte.
4. The application will be decided
within one month of its receipt and
the decision conveyed to the
applicant.
5. During the period of
deliberation of the application the
postal articles will continue to be
delivered at the doorstep of the
addressee or at a common place
agreed to by the
Caretaker/management of the
building/society."
The aforementioned guidelines contain adequate provisions for ensuring that the power to grant exemption under clause 4 of the 1996 Order is exercised reasonably.
We would, however, direct that the following changes be made in the guidelines :-
(i) In paragraph 1 of the
guidelines the last date fixed for
submission of applications shall be
March 31, 1997, instead of February
19. 1997.
(ii) In paragraph 2 of the
guidelines it should be prescribed
that the officer before going to
the building concerned for
inspection shall give prior notice
of the date and time of his visit
to the building to the person who
has submitted the application
referred to in paragraph 1 of the
guidelines.
This takes care of the existing
buildings.
As regards buildings to be constructed in future, we find that the Urban Development Department of the Government of Maharashtra has made the Development Control Regulations for Greater Bombay, 1991 which have been published in Maharashtra Government Part-I dated February 21, 1991. The said regulations provide that "a letter box of an appropriate dimension shall be provided on the ground floor of residence, commercial buildings with five or more storeys to the satisfaction of the Commissioner". The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay must ensure that no plan for a building is approved unless it contains provision for space for mail boxes and no plan is being sanctioned which does not contain such provision, the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay will also ensure hat no occupancy and completion certificate is granted in respect of any building if it does not satisfy the aforesaid requirement.
Since the 1996 Order is applicable throughout the country and high-rise multi-storeyed buildings are coming up in other towns, it is expected that the States as well as the Union Territories shall make suitable provisions on the same lines as have been made in Maharashtra and that the local authorities in the various towns will follow the above mentioned directions given with regard to sanctioning of plans for new buildings and granting of completion and occupancy certificates for such buildings.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.