Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/659/2010 9/ 10 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 659 of 2010
===================================
RAMLAL
HANSRAJ MALLAH & 7 - Petitioners
Versus
DIRECTOR
GENERAL (PO &T) & 1 - Respondents
===================================
Appearance
:
MR
BP GUPTA for Petitioners.
MR PS CHAMPANERI for
Respondents.
===================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ
Date
: 12/03/2010
ORAL ORDER
The
petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying for quashing and setting aside the
letter / order dated 07.07.2008 issued by the respondent No.1 with
all consequential and incidental effects. By way of interim
relief, the petitioners have prayed for stay against the
implementation, execution and operation of the letter / order dated
07.07.2008 and seeking direction to the respondent authorities to
follow the procedure of issuing, finalizing tenders for the license
to work as Professional Letter Writer and to permit / allow the
petitioners to work as Professional Letter Writer in the premises of
the Post Offices allotted to the petitioners under respondent No.2
after taking appropriate license fees till the finalization of the
tenders.
This
Court has issued notice on 28.01.2010. Pursuant to the notice, Mr.
P. S. Champaneri, learned Assistant Solicitor General appeared on
behalf of the respondents.
It
is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners are working as
Professional Letter Writers at various Post Offices under respondent
No.2 since last about 16 to 33 years as per the provisions of Post
and Telegraphs Manual. On 11.03.2008, tender notice was issued by
the respondent No.1 inviting tenders for giving contract of
Professional Letter Writer at various Post Offices in the city of
Ahmedabad for the period from 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2010, and the
tenders submitted by the petitioners were accepted and the
respondent No.2 informed the petitioners that the request of the
petitioners to work as Professional Letter Writer has been approved
for the period 2008 09 and the petitioners were directed to pay
fees before the prescribed date as license fees for one year i.e.
2008-09, subject to further renewal for next one year. The
petitioners have paid the license fees and petitioners were working
as Professional Letter Writer.
During
the subsistence of this contract, the petitioners received two
letters dated 18.03.2009 and 23.03.2009 from respondent No.1 stating
that the system of Professional Letter Writer in the post offices
has been discontinued w.e.f. 01.04.2009 and, therefore, no
Professional Letter Writer would be permitted / allotted in the Post
Office premises. While issuing such letters, reliance was placed on
the letter dated 07.07.2008 issued by the Directorate. A copy of
the said letter was not given to the petitioners. The petitioners,
therefore, approached this Court by way of Special Civil Application
Nos.2904 of 2009 to 2911 of 2009 and this Court vide its order dated
30.03.2009 issued certain directions to the petitioners to make
representation and the Court directed the respondent authorities to
consider such representation within two weeks from the date of
receipt of the same.
As
per the direction issued by this Court, copy of the order dated
07.07.2008 was supplied to the petitioners against which a
representation was made. The representation came to be decided on
29.05.2009. A detailed order was passed by the Deputy Director
General (PG & QA) on 29.05.2009 wherein it is observed that
after careful examination of the issues raised in the petition,
following discussion may provide the required clarification.
Explanation on the above issues are given below :-
Rule 105 of
Chapter-II of P&T manual Vol. VIII which deals with the provision
of Professional Letter Writer, is not an act of the Parliament and
can be amended by the Department by administrative process.
The corrections
or otherwise of the action taken by SSP Ahmedabad City Division to be
examined in the light of the following Rules :-
Para 02 of Rule
105 of Chapter-II Vol.VIII empowers the Superintendent to lease out
the right to use the post office premises to a contractor.
Para 3 (I) of
Rule 105 says that wherever, license have been issued on contract
system adopted in the past, same system should continue in future.
Para 3 (v)
mentions about granting of annual license even as the lease may be
given for a period of three years.
It
was further made clear that the terms ‘annual license’ and ‘Lease or
Contract’ are not interchangeable, as the provision for annual
license in very much inherent in the Lease or Contract and cannot be
compared with the duration of annual license. The authorities have,
therefore, taken the view that the Contract which was executed for
the period from 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2010, shall remain in force and
the license of the petitioners would not be renewed after 01.04.2010
in light of the letter dated 07.07.2008.
It
is this order which is under challenge in the present petition.
Mr.
B. P. Gupta, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners has
submitted that large number of persons are approaching the post
offices daily, out of which some are very old persons, some are
illiterate, some are literate but they need assistance of
Professional Letter Writers in filling up the forms and sealing the
articles intended for transmission by post. He has further
submitted that thousands of letters are still reaching dead letters
office because of not writing the correct address on the article of
the post and, therefore, it is not proper to say that because of
increase in the literacy of the people, the scheme of Professional
Letter Writers deserves to be discontinued. The presence of the
Professional Letter Writers in the premises of the post office makes
handy the things which are required for preparing insured covers and
other articles, sealing them with gum and wax, packing and stitching
of parcels etc. and, therefore, the services provided by
Professional Letter Writers is in the interest of general public.
He has further submitted that there is no rational behind passing
the impugned order nor it is in the interest of general public. The
Circular / letter issued by the respondents is contrary to the
constitutional provisions and it can be done only by the legislative
action. Though the Director General has power to issue Circulars
under Article 22, the said Circular should not be in contrast with
the other provisions of the Manual. He has, therefore, submitted
that the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 requires to be
quashed and set aside.
Mr.
P. S. Champaneri, learned Assistant Solicitor General, on the other
hand, makes it clear that while issuing the Circular dated
07.07.2008 to all the post offices in the country, it was made clear
that this system was set up at a time when the literacy rate was not
high in the country and there was a need for assistance for
illiterate people in facilitating their interaction with the post
office and fulfilling their communication requirements. Now with
the changes in the literacy profile all over the country along with
the changes in the communications technology, it is felt that
professional letter writers have become redundant. Based on these
reasons, throughout the country, the system was directed to be
discontinued. He has further submitted that in any case, this is a
policy matter and the contracts were executed for a specific time.
The petitioners have no inherent right to insist that the said
contract should be executed from year to year. He has, therefore,
submitted that no indulgence be shown in this petition and it is
required to be dismissed.
Having
heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and
having gone through the relevant Rules and the order passed earlier,
the Court is of the view that same grievance was raised by the
petitioner earlier which was redressed by the Division Bench of this
Court directing the petitioners to make representation after receipt
of the Circular dated 07.07.2008 and now the said representation is
considered and decided with sound reasoning and the decision was
taken to discontinue the system after the contract period is over.
While discontinuing the system, the authority has made it very clear
that this system is no longer required in view of the changed
circumstances. There is no denial of the fact that literacy ratio
has gone up and there are other mode of communication available and
the assistance of the Professional Letter Writers is no longer
required. Even otherwise, by not allowing them to use the post
office premises, the business of the Professional Letter Writers
would not come to an end. They can certainly render such assistance
if so required outside the post office premises. They are not
restrained from carrying on their business outside the post office
premises. It is also true that the arrangement between the
petitioners and the respondent authorities are absolutely based on
contractual terms and once this period is over, it is none of the
function of the Court to direct the authorities to enter into the
contract with the petitioners.
Taking
any view of the matter, the Court does not find any subtance in this
petition. Hence the petition is dismissed. Notice discharged
without any order as to costs.
Sd/-
[K. A. PUJ, J.]
Savariya
Top