MAHABIRPRASAD S DEORA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, can be conveniently disposed of by common judgment as the challenge in both the petitions is to the validity of the Notification dated May 29, 1991 issued by the Director General in exercise of powers conferred under sub-section (3) of section 21 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898. By Notification, the Director General made the order to be called as Delivery of Mail Order 1991 and the order is to apply to delivery of unregistered mail of the classes specified in the order. The unregistered mail of the following classes i. e. (a)Letter mail namely envelopes, Inland Letter Cards, Postcards and Aerogrammes; (b)Book packets and sample packets; (c)Acknowledgement Cards and (d)Registered Newspapers are to be delivered by the Postman at the address of the addressee, only in single storeyed buildings and on the ground floor of storeyed buildings. The addressees other than those residing in the single storeyed buildings and on the ground floor of storeyed buildings are required to provide a mail box on the ground floor of the building on which the address is located at a place acceptable to the Post Office. The mail is to be delivered by the postman in such mail boxes. The order further provides that the persons at the same address may provide a separate mail box for each with the name and address superscribed thereon, and two or more addressees may have a common box with their address superscribed thereon. The order further sets out that the post office may deliver such mail of sizes that do not admit of delivery through mail box, parcels and unpaid or insufficiently paid mail of all classes at the address through the postman. The order does not extend to mail for which the addressee is required to give a receipt on delivery but intimations relating thereto may be delivered through mail box. The order was to take effect from November 1, 1991 but power was conferred on the Postmaster General to authorise continuance of the delivery through the postman at any station under his jurisdiction after that date also.

(2.) THE publication of the order by Director General gave rise to filing of these two petitions. As expected, any change in the existing system leads to objections either real or imaginary and Petition No. 3235 of 1991 is filed by the petitioner claiming to litigate for the benefit of the public while Writ Petition No. 25 of 1992 is filed by a practising Advocate. On admission of the Writ Petition No. 3235 of 1991, a Division Bench of this Court directed that the Committee should be appointed consisting of the Municipal Commissioner of Greater Bombay and an Architect to be nominated by Chief Postmaster General and the Postmaster General, Bombay. The Committee should decide whether the Notification can be implemented in respect of any premises, house or building in respect of which there is an objection. The Division Bench held that the Notification should not be implemented until objections are invited and are considered. The Division Bench made it clear that the Notification shall not be implemented in respect of objectors till final disposal of the petition. The petition was posted for final hearing at an early date and the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing before the Division Bench submitted that the Union of India is taking a fresh look into all aspects connected with the issue in view of fresh developments and a fresh decision would be taken. The hearing of the petition was deferred in view of the assurance given by the learned Additional Solicitor General.

(3.) THE Government of India, Department of Posts (Ministry of Communications) formed a Committee of Members of Parliament to examine the Delivery of Mail Order, 1991 by order dated May 29, 1992. The order recites that the order of Director General was complied with voluntarily by many addressees but led to opposition from a section of the public in Greater Bombay, particularly on the ground that space is not available on the ground floor in many buildings for provision of mail box. Representations were received from number of persons and therefore the order was kept in abeyance in Greater Bombay. The Minister of State for Communications thought it appropriate that the Committee of Members of Parliament from Bombay should be constituted to recommend modifications in the scheme for Greater Bombay. The Committee was requested to make recommendations within three months from the date of the order. Accordingly, a High Power Committee of the Members of Parliament from Bombay, presided over by Sharad Dighe, was constituted. The committee interviewed large number of people, both official and citizens and submitted a report in November 1992. The recommendations made by the Committee were accepted and as per the affidavit filed by Anakkara Vadakkath Balakrishna Menon, Chief Postmaster General, Maharashtra Circle, sworn on October 14, 1993, the scheme was modified in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee in so far as Bombay city is concerned. The salient features of the modified scheme are :-