ORDER
Pendse, J.
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) Acknowledgment 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 addresseess 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:–
“(a) The Mail Box Scheme should be introduced in buildings which shall be hereafter constructed and in buildings which are still under construction. For this purpose, the Development Control Regulations for Greater Bombay 1991 issued by the Urban Development Department, Government of Maharashtra, Gazette Part 1 contains a provision that ‘a letter box of appropriate dimension shall be provided on the ground floor of residential and commercial buildings with 5 or more storeys to the satisfaction of the Commissioner.’
(b) The scheme should apply also to 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 is found to be correct, 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.
(c) As far as rest of the buildings of Bombay are concerned they should be fully exempt for the present. The Postal Authorities may undertake vigorous 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.
(d) The Committee observed that while there may be instances of genuine hardship likely to arise from the implementation of the scheme, there are some merits also in the scheme. The scheme cannot, therefore, be rejected outright. It will have to be introduced cautiously without causing hardship to the people. Public awareness is to be created while introducing the scheme.
(e) The Committee recommended that adequate time, say three months may be given to those who are required to comply with the scheme.”
4. Shri Dhanuka, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in writ petition No. 3235 of 1991 and Shri Kantawala in writ petition No. 25 of 1992 challenge the validity of the order dated May 29, 1991 passed by Director General and the modification there-of in pursuance of the recommendations of the Committee by urging that the Director General had no power to issue such order in exercise of powers under sub-section (3) of Section 21 of the Act. It was contended that Legislature had delegated powers to the Director General to pass orders but the Director General cannot exercise powers in a
manner which will lead to abrogation of the provisions of the Act. A faint attempt was made to indicate that the notification suffers from lack of legislative competency. Both the counsel submitted that the order of the Director General suffers from arbitrariness and mala fide and in any event, the order is difficult to implement and implementation is likely to lead to serious inconvenience and hardship to the citizens of Bombay. We are afraid we cannot accede to the submissions urged in support of the challenge and in our judgment, the order of the Director General as modified does not suffer from infirmity.
5. The Indian Post Office Act 1898 was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to the post office in India and came into force from March 22, 1898. Section 3 sets out the meanings of in course of transmission by post’ and ‘delivery’. The said section sets out that for the purposes of the Act, the delivery of a postal article at the house or office of the addressee, or to the addressee or his servant or agent or other person considered to be authorised to receive the article according to the usual manner of delivering postal articles to the addressee, shall be deemed to be delivered to the addressee. It was urged that the meaning of expression ‘delivery’ means the physical delivery of the postal article at the house or office of the addressee. There cannot be any debate that the delivery must be the physical delivery. The entire controversy involved is on the issue as to whether the delivery at the house or office means at the door step of the house or office. It is not a secret that the buildings constructed in Greater Bombay after 1960 are high-rising buildings and consist of more than 15 to 20 floors. Each of the floor consists of several flats and the concept of the house as understood in the year 1898 has undergone drastic change. The expression ‘house’ as understood in the early part of the century connotes a house used by an individual for his residence and the concept of buildings, much less, high-rising buildings was unknown. Both the counsel submitted that Section 3(c) prescribes that the delivery of the article should be at the house and that means at the house of every flat owner in the building. It was urged that
the Director General cannot prescribe that delivery will be made in the mail box situated at the entrance to the building because that would not be a legal and valid delivery as prescribed under Section 3(c) of the Act. It is not possible to accede to the submission of the learned counsel. The expression ‘house’ or ‘office’ should be understood in its proper perspective, taking into consideration the realities of the situation in Greater Bombay. The house should not be construed as the flat in a building but the house includes not only the building but the surrounding area of the building. A delivery of the mail in the mail box to be located on the ground floor of the building cannot by any stretch of imagination be considered as invalid delivery because mail is not delivered at the door of each flat-holder. To accept the claim of the petitioners that the valid delivery takes place only when the mail is delivered at the doorstep of the flat owner would lead to serious complications. The Director General has introduced the Mail Delivery Order by taking into consideration several facets which are set out in the report made by the Committee of Parliamentarians from Bombay. The perusal of the report makes it clear that the Committee has taken into consideration various aspects including the difficulties faced by the postal officials in tendering mail in high-rising buildings. The Committee has taken into consideration the objections lodged by several bodies and the associations and have carefully analysed objections and had tendered the report which has been accepted by the Central Government and the Director General and the original order stands modified. The decision taken by the Director General is a policy decision and it is not permissible to interfere with the decision in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
6. The petitioners submitted that the powers conferred on the Director General under sub-section (3) of Section 21 do not entitle the Director General to issue an order which will eclipse various provisions of the Act. Sub-section (3) of Section 21 prescribes that postal articles shall be posted and delivered at such times and in such manner as the Director General may, by order, from time to time, appoint. The petitioners did not dispute
that the Director General had powers to direct the manner in which the postal articles should be delivered. It was urged that the power cannot be exercised in a manner which will make the provisions of the Act infructuous. It was urged that the direction that the mail can be delivered in the mail box situated at the entrance of the building would make the provisions of sections 52 and 55 unworkable. We are unable to find any merit in the contention. Section 52 provides for penalty for theft, dishonest misappropriation, secretion, destruction or throwing away of postal articles while Section 55 provides for penalty for fraud in connection with official marks and for receipt of excess postage. It is difficult to imagine how the provisions regarding levy of penalty prescribed under two sections become redundant by the order of the Director General providing that the mail will be delivered only in the mail box in certain categories. Shri Kantawala referred to the decision of the Supreme Court Radha Kishan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, to urge that the expression ‘in course” of transmission by post’ would cover even the postal articles which were delivered in mutilated condition. The reliance was placed to submit that the course of transmission by post is not complete till the article is delivered to the addressee. There cannot be any dispute about the correctness of the submission but the contention that the delivery is complete only when the article is delivered at the doorstep of the addressee is not correct. The delivery at the house need not be at the doorstep but can be at the entrance of the building in which the flat is situated. The report of the Parliamentarians’ Committee reflects that the population of Greater Bomboy Municipal Corporation area which was 82.87 lakhs in 1981 rose to 99 lakhs in 1991. The total mails handled in Bombay city which was 32 lakhs per day in 1986 is now 44 lakhs per day, in the year 1991. The number of articles received for delivery in post offices in the suburbs of Bombay was 6,80,259 per day in 1986-87 and it has risen to.8,12,591 per day in 1991-92. The magnitude and complexity of the tasks involved in the collection, transmission and delivery of mail can be understood
from the aforesaid data and the difficulties of postal department in ensuring prompt and quick delivery of mail have been compounded by large-scale urbanisation, with proliferation of not only new housing settlements and colonies and thousands of high-rise and multi-storeyed buildings, but also the spread of new industrial belts and industrial estates in almost all cities and towns. The Chief Postmaster General had explained to the committee constraints of Postal Department in augmenting the delivery establishment. Indiscriminate increase in the number of postmen in post offices causes problems due to lack of space, amenities and equipments. The Postal Department is already incurring a loss of Rs. 200/- crores per annum due to a variety of reasons including postal tariffs being kept low to provide cheap postal service to the masses. The Department is facing resource crunch due to reduction in the budgetary provisions. The Postal Department has therefore realised that time has come to modernise and rationalise its various operations with a view to face the various challenges and improve its services. The Parliamentarians’ Committee realised that these are large advantages of the scheme. The postman will be able to render quicker delivery of mail. The postman will not have to lug his load of mail from floor to floor and will be relieved of the tedium and drudgery involved in floor-to-floor delivery at the doors and climbing up and down the stairs. It was urged on behalf of the petitioners that the postmen had no objection to deliver the mail at the doorsteps of the flat owner. The argument overlooks that it is a bounden duty of any Government to ensure that the labour force is not exploited while performing their duties. The mere fact that the labour force is not objecting is not sufficient to claim that the postmen should be forced to continue with the hardships suffered. Shri Kantawala submitted that the system of delivery of mail at the doorsteps of the flat-holder is prevalent for last over several years and there is no rationale to alter the same. We are unable to find any merit in the submission. The system was prevalent when the situation of the city was entirely different. As the city is growing
by leaps and bounds and the idea of constructing high-rising buildings has come to stay, it is futile to suggest that the system which was prevalent when the houses consisted of a ground floor and first floor only, should be continued for ever.
7. Finally, if was contended that the scheme is arbitrary and would cause inconvenience and hardship to the flat-holders residing in high-rising building. Initially the complaint was that it was impossible for old buildings to provide space for setting up the mail boxes on the ground floor. That difficulty was resolved by the modification of the order in pursuance of the recommendation of the Parliamentarians’ Committee. The claim that the implementation of the order would lead to problems is more imaginery than real. The Parliamentarians’ Committee recommended and which recommendation was accepted, prescribes that the scheme shall apply to high-rising buildings with six storeys (ground plus five storeys) and more. The modification further provides that even in respect of such buildings, where any genuine hardships is pointed out to the Postmaster General, Bombay, then such buildings can be exempted from the scheme. It is also necessary in this connection to bear in mind that the Development Control Rules framed by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay in year 1991 also prescribe that the buildings to be constructed hereinafter consisting six storeys or more shall provide for space on the ground floor for having mail boxes. Shri Kantawala submitted that the rule should be made applicable in respect of the buildings to be constructed hereafter and not to the existing buildings. We are unable to give any such direction to the Director General because it is not open for this Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, to direct that the exercise of power should be modified in what the petitioner thinks right. The modification of the order clearly provides that in case any hardship is noticed by the Postmaster General in respect of any such existing buildings, then such buildings can be exempted from the implementation of the order. In our judgment, the modification is more than sufficient to remove the apprehension of
the petitioners that the implementation of the order would cause hardship and inconvenience to the occupiers of high-rising buildings or offices.
Though a faint attempt was made to urge that the order suffers from lock of legislative competency, the contention is not required to be examined because during the course of arguments, it was conceded that the Director General had ample powers under subjection (3) of S. 21 to issue the order. In our judgment, the contention that the order suffers from lack of legislative competency is merely required to be stated to be rejected. In our judgment, the order passed by the Director General, as modified, does not suffer from any infirmity and both the petitions must fail.
8. Accordingly, rule in both the petitions stands discharged, but there will be no order as to costs.
9. Petitions dismissed.