Super Sales Corporation vs Sr. Superintendent Of Post … on 16 July, 1999

0
75
Orissa High Court
Super Sales Corporation vs Sr. Superintendent Of Post … on 16 July, 1999
Equivalent citations: AIR 2000 Ori 54
Author: R Patra
Bench: R Patra, R Dash


JUDGMENT

R.K. Patra, J.

1. Can postal authorities refuse to deliver postal articles transmitted to the addressee on the plea that they doubt the bona fides of the addressee ? This is the short question that arises for consideration in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. The petitioner-Messrs Super Sales Corporation’s case is that it is a commercial establishment represented through its Chief Executive Vishal Dhawan. It is a company which deals with automobile and household

electrical appliances. Initially it was functioning at the 315, Kharavelanagar, Unit-III, Bhubaneswar-1. Subsequently it shifted its office to plot No. 125, Sector-A, Zone-B, Mancheswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-10. Plot No. 125 on which the petitioner is now functioning was allotted to one Messers Vishal Engineering by the Industrial Development Corporation of Orissa. The petitioner has been occupying the said plot as a tenant of Messrs Vishal Engineering. The proprietor of Messrs Vishal Engineering and the Chief Executive of the petitioner is one and the same person, namely, Vishal Dhawan. After shifting of its office to the aforesaid plot No. 125, the petitioner sent intimation to all concerned including the Sub-Postmaster, Resulgarh Sub-Post Office, Rasulgarh-opposite party No. 3 under whose jurisdiction it comes to deliver all letters (ordinary/registered) in its present address. It has also submitted the tenancy certificate in proof of its occupation of plot No. 125. The allegation of the petitioner is that opposite party No. 3 without any authority is not taking any steps to deliver postal articles transmitted to the petitioner in its given address. As a result, it has been suffering a lot in transacting its day to day business. It accordingly seeks appropriate direction to the opposite parties, particularly opposite party No. 3, to deliver all postal articles/mails addressed to it at its given address.

3-4. The opposite parties have filed counter-affidavit which was affirmed by the Senior Superintendent of Post-Offices, Bhubaneswar Division, Bhubaneswar-opposite party No. 1. Their case is that on plot No. 125, Sector-A, Zone-B, Mancheswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-10, one firm namely Messrs Vishal Engineering has been functioning since 1983 and has been receiving all kinds of mails addressed to it from the office of the Sub-postmaster, Rasulgarh Sub-Post Office-opposite party No. 3. It has been further averred in the counter-affidavit that from the documents produced by V. K. Dhawan it would appear that he and his family members have arranged to operate different unregistered firms giving different names taking shelter of one registered firm, i.e., Vishal Engineering. Original allotment of the plot in question is in favour of Messrs Vishal Engineering and no lease or any other instrument is produced by any other firms to establish their right over the said plot. The Department of Posts is accountable to the sender of the postal articles and in the event of any less, mis-delivery the opposite parties might be held responsible and that is the

reason why it is necessary to find out the genuineness of the firms before delivery of the postal articles transmitted in their address. In paragraph-22 of the counter-affidavit, the opposite parties have stated that they have no objection to extend the facility of delivery of postal articles to the petitioner provided it produces necessary documents in support of its bona fides.

5. As has been held by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Mohd. Nazim, AIR 1980 SC 431, the post office is not a common carrier. It is not an agent of the sender of the postal article for reaching it to the addressee. It is really a branch of the public service providing postal services subject to the provision of the Post Office Act, 1898 and the rules made thereunder. The above said being the position of law, let us examine if there is anything in the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 conferring discretion on the postal authorities to refuse delivery of postal article transmitted by post to a given addressee. No provision of the Act was brought to our notice by the learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties authorising the post office to withhold or refuse to deliver the postal articles transmitted to the addressee on the ground that the bona fides of the addressee is doubted. For the aforesaid reasons, we have not been able to persuade ourselves to accept the plea of opposite parties that they are not obliged to deliver postal article transmitted by post to the petitioner’s given address unless they are satisfied about the bona fides of its legal existence. Postal authorities are not Vigilance Officers to probe whether any company or firm is a fake or genuine one. That is the business of other authorities established under law.

6. In the result, the writ petition succeeds. The opposite parties are directed to cause delivery of postal articles transmitted by post to the petitioner In the given address.

R.K. Dash, J.

7. I agree.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *