{"id":94835,"date":"1955-03-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1955-03-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-satyanathan-vs-k-subramanyan-and-others-on-29-march-1955"},"modified":"2017-09-26T00:39:40","modified_gmt":"2017-09-25T19:09:40","slug":"n-satyanathan-vs-k-subramanyan-and-others-on-29-march-1955","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-satyanathan-vs-k-subramanyan-and-others-on-29-march-1955","title":{"rendered":"N. Satyanathan vs K. Subramanyan And Others on 29 March, 1955"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
N. Satyanathan vs K. Subramanyan And Others on 29 March, 1955<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1955 AIR 459, \t\t 1955 SCR (2)\t 83<\/div>\n
Author: B P Sinha<\/div>\n
Bench: Sinha, Bhuvneshwar P.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nN. SATYANATHAN\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nK. SUBRAMANYAN AND OTHERS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n29\/03\/1955\n\nBENCH:\nSINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.\nBENCH:\nSINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.\nBOSE, VIVIAN\nJAGANNADHADAS, B.\n\nCITATION:\n 1955 AIR  459\t\t  1955 SCR  (2)\t 83\n\n\nACT:\nRepresentation of the People Act, 1951 (Act XLIII of  1951),\ns.  7(4)-Appellant  entered  into  agreement  with   Central\nGovernment  for\t conveying  postal articles  and  mail\tbags\nthrough\t Motor\tVehicle Se?-vice  on  certain  remuneration-\nAppellant whether disqualified for election to the House  of\nPeople under s. 7(d) of the Act.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  question for determination in this appeal\twas  whether\nthe  appellant\twas  disqualified  under  s.  7(d)  of\t the\nRepresentation\tof the People Act, 1951 for election to\t the\nHouse of the People.\nThe material portion of s. 7(d) of the Act reads as follows:\n\"A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as and\t for\nbeing,\ta member of either House  of  Parliament............\n(b)  if,  whether  by himself or by any person\tor  body  of\npersons\t in  trust  for him or for his\tbenefit\t or  on\t his\naccount,  he  has  any\tshare  or  interest  in\t a  contract\nfor............ the performance of any service undertaken by\nthe appropriate Government\".\nThe  appellant (a contractor) had entered into an  agreement\nwith  the Central Government.  The relevant portion  of\t the\nsaid agreement was as follows:-\n\"The  contractor has offered to contract with the  Governor-\nGeneral for the provision of a Motor Vehicle Service for the\ntransit conveyance of all postal articles and mail bags from\nDecember  15,  1949 to December 14, 1952 and  the  Governor-\nGeneral has accepted the offer.\n\"The Government agrees to pay to the contractor Rs. 200\t per\nmonth  during  the  subsistence of  the\t agreement  'as\t his\nremuneration for service to be rendered by him' \".\nHeld  that on the face of it the agreement was\tbetween\t two\ncompetent  parties with their free consent, and there was  a\nlawful\tcash  consideration for it.  The  Appellant  entered\ninto the agreement with his eyes open knowing full well\t his\nrights and liabilities under the same.\n84\nThe  case was a straightforward illustration of the kind  of\ncontract  contemplated\tby  s.\t7(d) of\t the  Act.   At\t all\nmaterial  times the appellant had been\tdirectly  concerned,\nfor  his own benefit, in the contract of carrying mail\tbags\nand postal articles entered into by him with the  Government\nin the Postal Department.\nSection 7 of the Act is clearly intended to avoid a conflict\nbetween public duty and private interests.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 252 of 1954.
\nAppeal\tby Special Leave from the Judgment and\tOrder  dated
\nthe  22nd January 1953 of the Election Tribunal, Vellore  in
\nElection Petition No. 35 of 1952.\n<\/p>\n
N.C.  Chatterjee  (A.  N. Sinha and N.\tH.  Hingorani,\twith
\nhim), for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
C. V. L. Narayan, for respondent No. 1.\n<\/p>\n
1955.  March 29.  The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nSINHA.\t J.-The\t only  question for  determination  in\tthis
\nappeal\tby  special  leave  is\twhether\t the  appellant\t  is
\ndisqualified-under section 7(d) of the Representation of the
\nPeople\tAct, 1951 (hereinafter called the Act) for  election
\nto  the\t House\tof  the People,\t as  held  by  the  Election
\nTribunal, North Arcot, Vellore, by its orders dated the 20th
\nJanuary, 1953 in Election Petition No. 35 of 1952.
\nThe  facts of this case are not in dispute and lie within  a
\nnarrow\tcompass.   The\tappellant and  respondents  I  to  3
\ncontested  the\tlast general elections from  the  Dharmapuri
\nParliamentary  Constituency in the district of Salem in\t the
\nState  of  Madras.   Respondents  4 to\t10  who\t were  added
\nsubsequently   by  an  order  of  the  Tribunal\t were\talso
\ncandidates  for election.  Their nominations also  had\tbeen
\nheld  to  be  valid  but  they\tultimately  withdrew   their
\ncandidature  before the polling took place.   The  appellant
\nwas in due course declared to have been elected to the House
\nof  the People.\t Thereafter, on the 5th March, 1952 the\t 1st
\nrespondent  filed an election petition before  the  Election
\nCommission contesting the appellant’s election
\n85<\/span>
\non  the\t ground that the appellant  was\t disqualified  under
\nsection 7(d) of the Act as, from the date of his  nomination
\nand until the date of election and after, the appellant\t had
\na  contract  with  the Government of  India  in\t the  Postal
\nDepartment  for\t the transport of postal mail  which  was  a
\nservice\t undertaken  by the Government of  India.   At\tthis
\nstage it is necessary to state that it is admitted that\t the
\nappellant  is  and has been the holder of a  stage  carriage
\nservice permit (Ex.  B-2) dated the 26th April 1949,  issued
\nby the Regional Transport Authority, Salem, Madras.  It\t was
\none of the conditions of the said permit that if called upon
\nthe  appellant\twill  enter  into  an  agreement  with\t the
\nGovernment of India for the transport of postal articles and
\nmail  bags.  In pursuance of that obligation  the  appellant
\nentered\t into a registered agreement with the Government  of
\nIndia on the 16th November 1949 (Ex.  A-3) to be noticed  in
\ndetail\thereinafter.   After  the appellant  had  filed\t his
\nnomination  paper, the 1st respondent by his petition  dated
\nthe  28th November 1951 raised the objection to\t the  effect
\nthat his nomination should be rejected on the ground that he
\nhad entered into a contract with the Government of India for
\nhis own benefit for the transport of mail between Salem\t and
\nYercaud.    The\t  Returning  Officer  for   the\t  Dharmapuri
\nParliamentary Constituency, Salem, by his orders (Ex.\tA-2)
\nof  the same date overruled the objection holding  that\t the
\nservice\t rendered by the appellant of carrying mail  is\t not
\nunder  an  agreement  but  on an  imperative  order  of\t the
\nGovernment  under  Rule 160-B of the Madras  Motor  Vehicles
\nRules.\t Apparently the registered agreement (Ex.  A-3)\t had
\nnot been placed before him.\n<\/p>\n
To  the\t election petition filed by the 1st  respondent\t the
\nappellant  filed his written statement on the 28th May\t1952
\ndenying that he was disqualified for election as a member of
\nParliament  by virtue of the provisions of section  7(d)  of
\nthe  Act.   His\t contention was that “it  is  the  exclusive
\nprivilege  of the Government of India to convey\t all  postal
\narticles  from\tone  place to another and  it  is  a  normal
\nfunction  of the Government statutorily reserved to  itself.
\nThere is no justifi-\n<\/p>\n
86<\/span><\/p>\n
cation\tto  regard the carrying of mails from one  place  to
\nanother as the performance of any service undertaken by\t the
\nGovernment”.   It  was\tfurther averred\t on  behalf  of\t the
\nappellant  that\t it  was not justifiable to  regard  him  as
\nhaving any interest in a contract for the performance of any
\nservice undertaken by the appropriate Government within\t the
\nmischief  of section 7(d) of the Act; and that he  had\tbeen
\nonly  carrying out the obligations imposed upon him by\tRule
\n160-B of the rules framed under the Motor Vehicles Act.\t  It
\nwas   also   contended\tthat  under  article  103   of\t the
\nConstitution   of  India  the  question\t as  to\t  the\tdis-
\nqualification of a member has to be decided by the President
\nwhose decision shall be final.\n<\/p>\n
On  those pleadings the following issues were framed by\t the
\nElection Tribunal:-\n<\/p>\n
1.Is the nomination of the 1st respt. invalid because of the
\nprohibition contained in section 7(d) of the  Representation
\nof the People Act, 1951, or for any of the reasons set forth
\nin paras. 9 to 11 of the petition?\n<\/p>\n
2.Has  this Tribunal no jurisdiction to decide the  question
\nas  regards the disqualification of the returned  candidate,
\nbecause of article 103 of the Constitution of India?
\nIt is not necessary to refer to the additional issue bearing
\non the question of limitation arising from an  interlocutory
\napplication  for impleading those candidates (respondents  4
\nto  10)\t whose\tnomination had been  accepted  but  who\t had
\nwithdrawn from the contest.  Both these issues were  decided
\nagainst\t the  appellant.  The Tribunal on a  very  elaborate
\ndiscussion  of\tthe points raised before it, held  that\t the
\npostal service including the transport of mails is a service
\nundertaken  by the Central Government within the meaning  of
\nsection\t 7(d);\tthat  at  the date  of\tthe  nomination\t the
\nappellant  was\ta contractor under the\tCentral\t Government;
\nthat the agreement between the Government and the  appellant
\ninvolved mutual obligations which could not be referable  to
\na bare statutory duty on the part of the appellant but\tthat
\nit was the result ‘of mutual assent based upon a free
\n87<\/span>
\noffer  and acceptance; and that the agreement was  supported
\nby valid consideration.\t The Tribunal also held that article
\n103 of the Constitution was not a bar to its jurisdiction to
\ndecide,\t  the  controversy.   Accordingly  it  allowed\t the
\nelection  petition and held the appellant’s election  to  be
\nvoid in terms of section 100(1)(c) of the Act, with costs to
\nthe respondent.\t Hence this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
In  this appeal the contentions raised before  the  Election
\nTribunal,   except   the   objection   to   the\t  Tribunal’s
\njurisdiction in view of the provisions of article 103 of the
\nConstitution,  have  been pressed before us by\tthe  learned
\ncounsel\t for  the  appellant.\tIt  is\tmanifest  that\t the
\ndetermination  of  this\t case  must  depend  upon  the\ttrue
\nconstruction  and legal effect of the agreement\t (Ex.\tA-3)
\nadmittedly  entered into by the appellant with\tthe  Central
\nGovernment.   It is therefore necessary to set out  in\tsome
\ndetail the relevant clauses of the agreement.  The appellant
\n(called\t the  “contractor”)  is\t of the\t one  part  and\t the
\nGovernor-General of India of the other.\t The preamble says–
\n“Whereas  the  said  contractor Sri.   N.  Sathianathan\t has
\noffered to contract with Governor-General for the  provision
\nof  a Motor Vehicle Service for the transit  conveyance\t and
\ndelivery of all postal articles and mail bags as defined  in
\nthe  Indian Post Office Act, 1898, as amended from  time  to
\ntime,……………. from the 15th day of December 1949  to
\nthe  14th day of December 1952 and the Governor-General\t has
\naccepted   such\t  offer\t upon  the  terms   and\t  Conditions
\nhereinafter appearing…………..\n<\/p>\n
Now  this  indenture  witnesseth  that\tthe  contractor\t  in
\npursuance of the said agreement and in consideration of\t the
\npremises  and of the payments hereinafter agreed to be\tmade
\nto him…………….\n<\/p>\n
It is hereby mutually agreed and declared between and by the
\nparties hereto as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
1.Contract   to\t carry:-The  contractor\t shall\tduring\t the
\ncontinuance of this contract, that is to say, from the\t15th
\nday of December 1949 until the 14th day of December 1952  or
\nuntil  the said contract shall be determined by such  notice
\nas is hereinafter men-\n<\/p>\n
88<\/span><\/p>\n
tioned or otherwise in (hereinafter referred to as the\tsaid
\ncontract period) duly and safely convey………… by means
\nof  motor  vehicles  of good and  reliable  manufacture\t all
\npostal articles and mail bags……………..”
\nBy clause 4 the contractor is permitted to carry  passengers
\nand  their  luggage by bus provided there  is  accommodation
\navailable  and\tprovided  that\tthe  mail  service  is\t not
\nprejudiced in any way.\tBy clauses 5 and 6 the contractor is
\nrequired  to -maintain in good order and repair a number  of
\nmotor buses and their spare parts at his own expense and  to
\nbear all municipal and other taxes payable in respect of the
\nmotor vehicles.\t Clause 7 contains the schedule of penalties
\nin the event of non-completion of any journey or of delay in
\ncompletion  thereof in accordance with the time table,\tetc.
\nBy  clause  8 the contractor is made absolutely\t liable\t and
\nresponsible  for  the due and safe custody and\tdelivery  in
\ngood  order and condition of postal articles and mail  bags.
\nBy  clause  10\tnongazetted postal  and\t telegraph  officers
\ntravelling  on duty on the route allotted to  the  appellant
\nare  declared to be entitled to travel free of\tall  charges
\nand  such  official passengers shall  have  precedence\tover
\nordinary  passengers.  Clause 13 provides that the  contract
\nshall not be transferred by the contractor to any person  or
\ncompany\t without  the  previous consent in  writing  of\t the
\nDirector-General  of Posts & Telegraphs.  By clause  15\t the
\nGovernment agrees to pay to the contractor Rs. 200 per month
\nduring the subsistence of the agreement “as his remuneration
\nfor service to be rendered by him hereunder”‘.\tThis monthly
\nsum  of\t Rs.  200 is liable to\tbe  increased  or  decreased
\nproportionately\t to the increase or decrease in the  mileage
\nto be covered.\tClause 18 is in these terms:-
\n“In the event of the contractor failing to secure a  renewal
\nof  the permit on the line this contract will  automatically
\nterminate  on the date up to which the old permit  shall  be
\nvalid  and in such case no compensation shall be payable  to
\neither\tparty  for such termination.  This contract  may  be
\nabsolutely  determined\tand put an end to by either  of\t the
\ncontracting
\n89<\/span>
\nparties giving four calendar months notice in writing to the
\nother of his intention so to determine and put an end to the
\nsame”.\n<\/p>\n
Clause\t21  contains  the usual arbitration  clause  to\t the
\neffect\tthat all disputes and differences arising out of  or
\nin  any wise touching or concerning the agreement  shall  be
\nreferred to the sole arbitration of the Director-General  of
\nPosts  and Telegraphs or his nominee.  It is  also  provided
\nthat the award of the arbitrator shall be final and  binding
\non the parties.\n<\/p>\n
It  will be observed that the agreement set out above  is  a
\nformally   drawn  up  document\twhich  satisfies   all\t the
\nrequirements of a contract.  It is not the appellant’s\tcase
\nthat  the  contract has been vitiated  by  undue  influence,
\nfraud  or such other cause.  But it has been argued that  it
\nwas a necessary sequel to the stage carriage permit  granted
\nby the Transport Authority under the Motor Vehicles Act read
\nalong with the relevant rules.\tIn this connection reference
\nwas  made to rule 160-B of the Madras Motor  Vehicles  Rules
\nwhich is as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
“It shall be a condition of every stage carriage permit that
\nthe  holder  of\t the permit shall, if  so  required  by\t the
\ntransport authority which granted the permit, carry mails at
\nsuch rates and on such terms as the transport authority\t may
\nfix after consultation with the holder of the permit and the
\npostal authorities concerned”.\n<\/p>\n
The  rule  quoted above has apparently been made  under\t the
\nauthority of section 48(d) of the Motor Vehicles Act. It  is
\ncommon\tground\tthat  the agreement  aforesaid\tbetween\t the
\nappellant and the Central Governmentis in pursuance of\trule
\n160-B  aforesaid;  but it has been argued on behalf  of\t the
\nappellant  that\t though\t the  agreement\t aforesaid  has\t the
\n“semblance  of a contract”, it is lacking in the  “essential
\ningredients  of a free consensus of acceptance\tand  offer”.
\nThis  argument is based on the further contention  that\t the
\nappellant has been carrying mail on his buses in performance
\nof  a  statutory  obligation which cannot  come\t within\t the
\nmischief of
\n12<\/span>
\n90<\/span>
\nsection 7(d) of the Representation of the People Act,  1951.
\nThe material portion of the section is in these terms:-
\n“A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for
\nbeing,\t  a    member\tof   either   House    of    Parlia-\n<\/p>\n
ment……………………….\n<\/p>\n
(b)if,\twhether\t by  himself or by any\tperson\tor  body  of
\npersons\t in  trust  for him or for his\tbenefit\t or  on\t his
\naccount,  he  has  any\tshare  or  interest  in\t a  contract
\nfor………………………………\t    the\t performance
\nof any services undertaken by the appropriate Government”.
\nIt  has\t further  been\targued\talternatively  that  if\t the
\nagreement has the force of a contract, it is totally lacking
\nin consideration because the monetary consideration provided
\nfor  in\t the agreement is no more than the  subsidy  already
\nfixed by the Regional Transport Officer by his orders  dated
\nthe  23rd July, 1949; that the agreement in  question  being
\nwith a third party, namely, the Governor-General, to  render
\nservice which was already due to another party, namely,\t the
\nTransport Authority for the same consideration cannot amount
\nto a valid contract supported by consideration; and finally,
\nthat  the transport of mail is not a “service undertaken  by
\nthe Central Government”.\n<\/p>\n
In  our opinion, there is no substance in any one  of  these
\ncontentions.  It is true that the appellant entered into the
\ncontract  aforesaid  with  the Central\tGovernment  for\t the
\ntransport  of  postal  articles and mail bags  on  the\t16th
\nNovember, 1949.\t From before that date be had been  carrying
\non the business of plying buses on the route allotted to him
\nby  the Regional Transport Authority.  But he  entered\tinto
\nthe  contract with his eyes open and knowing full  well\t his
\nrights and liabilities under the same.\tNo one is  compelled
\nto  carry on the business of stage carriage service  or\t for
\nthe matter of that, of transporting postal articles and mail
\nbags.  In terms of the permit, it is open to the  Government
\nto  call  upon a permit holder to-undertake  the  additional
\nburden\tof  carrying  postal articles and  mail\t bags  which
\ncarries\t with it the additional remuneration to be fixed  by
\nthe  Transport Authority after consultation with the  postal
\nautho-\n<\/p>\n
91<\/span><\/p>\n
rities\tand  the carrier.  It is not  every  stage  carriage
\npermit holder who is called upon to do so.  At the time\t the
\nappellant entered into the contract with the, Government  in
\nthe  postal  department\t he may not have  had  any  idea  of
\nstanding  for  election to the House of the People  when  in
\nfuture the general elections came to be held.  If he  wished
\nto steer clear of the difficulty created by section 7 of the
\nAct,  he  could have given due notice  to  Government  under
\nclause 18 of the contract referred to above.  On the  expiry
\nof  the term of the notice he would have been free to  stand
\nfor  election to a State or Central Legislature.  Section  7
\nof the Act is clearly intended to. avoid a conflict  between
\npublic duty and private interest.\n<\/p>\n
The   Tribunal\tdiscussed  a  number  of  authorities\twith
\nreference  to the English and the American Law\tof  Contract
\nfor  arriving at the conclusion that the  agreement  between
\nthe  appellant\tand the Government of India  in\t the  Postal
\nDepartment had all the ingredients of a valid contract.\t The
\nTribunal  need not have travelled so far afield,  especially
\nwhen the provisions of the Indian Con tract Act which govern
\nthe case are sufficient to answer all the contentions raised
\non behalf of the appellant.  On the face of the\t transaction
\nthe  agreement was between two competent parties with  their
\nfree  consent.\t There was no question -but that  there\t was
\nlawful consideration, The permit for the stage carriage\t had
\nbeen granted by, the authority under the Motor Vehicles Act;
\nand the agreement for transport of postal articles and\tmail
\nbags  was  between  the Government of India  in\t the  Postal
\nDepartment and the appellant for a cash consideration.
\nBut  it was argued that the agreement was in pursuance of  a
\npre-existing obligation imposed by the rule aforesaid framed
\nunder  the Motor Vehicles Act.\tIt is true that\t the  permit
\ndoes  contain  a  condition that the  permit-holder  may  be
\ncalled\tupon to undertake transport of mail bags and  postal
\narticles  but that is only a notice to intending  applicants
\nfor a stage carriage permit that the grantee of such a\tper-
\nmit may have to render that additional service for an
\n92<\/span>
\nadditional  remuneration  if  called upon to do\t so  by\t the
\nauthorities  of the Postal Department.\tIf any one  was\t not
\nprepared to undertake that additional responsibility, he was
\nfree not to make an application for such a permit; but\tthat
\ndoes  not  mean\t that the agreement  actually  entered\tinto
\nbetween\t the Postal Department and the permit holder is\t not
\nan  independent contract governed by its own special  terms.
\nAs  indicated  above, clause 18 has reserved  the  right  to
\neither\tparty  to  terminate the  contract  on\tgiving\tfour
\nmonths’\t notice.   The appellant must be  presumed  to\thave
\nknown  that the agreement that he had entered into with\t the
\nPostal Department will stand in the way of his running as  a
\ncandidate   for\t election  to  the  Central  or\t the   State
\nLegislature.   There was nothing to prevent him from  giving
\nthe  necessary notice to the department and  thus  terminate
\nhis  agreement so as to be free to stand as a candidate\t for
\nelection  to  the  legislature.\t Section 7  of\tthe  Act  is
\nintended to ensure that there is no occasion for a  conflict
\nbetween\t public duty and private interests.   The  appellant
\nhad  a clear and free choice before him.  If he was  anxious
\nto   serve  the\t community  as\ta  member  of  the   Central
\nLegislature,  he  had to give up his private  gains  in\t the
\nshape  of the remuneration for carrying postal articles\t and
\nmail  bags in his buses.  It may be that on his\t terminating
\nthe  agreement with the postal department he would  have  to
\ngive  up his stage carriage permit also but not\t necessarily
\nso.   If  on  the same route a number of  bus  services\t are
\npermitted  to different parties, the Postal  Department\t may
\nchoose\tany one of them to enter into the agreement for\t the
\ncarriage  of  mail bags and postal articles.   But  even  if
\nthere was only one service for the route in respect of which
\nthe  appellant held the stage carriage permit, if he had  to
\ngive  up his permit, some other party would take  his  place
\nfor running the bus service and carrying the postal articles
\nand mail bags.\n<\/p>\n
It was further argued that the appellant had no hand in\t the
\nfixing\tof  the\t remuneration  to  be  paid  by\t the  Postal
\nDepartment for carrying its mails, etc.\t But it is clear, by
\na reference to the terms of the rule
\n93<\/span>
\nquoted above, that the amount of the remuneration had to  be
\nfixed by the department after consultation with the carrier.
\nIt  was\t always\t open to the latter to demur  to  the  terms
\nproposed  by  the  department  and  if\the  found  that\t the
\ndepartment  was not prepared to accept his terms he was\t not
\nbound  to  enter into the agreement.  The fact that  he\t had
\nagreed\tto carry postal articles and mail bags was  possibly
\nan  additional qualification for him to obtain a renewal  of
\nhis permit and thus gave him an advantage over his  competi-
\ntors.\tHence  instead of being an additional  burden  or  a
\nhandicap  to him, it was an additional advantage to  him  in
\nthe matter of getting a renewal of his permit in  preference
\nto  others.   The agreement was therefore  based  on  mutual
\npromises, by the appellant to carry the mail bags, etc., and
\nby  the Postal Department to pay him  suitable\tremuneration
\nfor the services thus rendered.\n<\/p>\n
It was further contended on behalf of the appellant that the
\nCentral\t Government could not be said to  have\t‘undertaken’
\nany ‘service’ within the meaning of section 7(d) of the\t Act
\nwhen it made arrangements for the carriage of mail bags\t and
\npostal articles through the appellant.’ It has not been\t and
\ncannot\tbe  contended that the Government is  bound  in\t the
\ndischarge  of  its  duties  as a  sovereign  state  to\tmake
\nprovision  for postal mail service.  The provisions  of\t the
\nIndian Post Office Act, VI of 1898, are only enabling in the
\nsense  that  they  authorize the State agency  to  have\t the
\nexclusive  privilege  of  conveying letters,  etc.  for\t the
\nconvenience  of\t the  public  and for  the  benefit  of\t the
\nGovernment, without making it obligatory upon it to  provide
\nevery individual and every place with those facilities.\t  It
\nmay be that those facilities are being extended from time to
\ntime and are being brought nearer to every home but that  is
\nonly evidence of the fact that the State as a welfare  state
\nis anxious to provide for the conveniences of the public  in
\nthe matter of communications and correspondence.  That is to
\nsay,  the  Government  in the  Postal  Department  has\tonly
\nundertaken  a  service to be rendered to the  community\t and
\nthat such
\n94<\/span>
\na service is not an essential function of a sovereign state.
\nIt  cannot  be gainsaid that the Governmentr in\t the  Postal
\nDepartment  is rendering a very useful service and that\t the
\nappellant has by his contract with the Government undertaken
\nto  render that kind of service on a specified\troute.\t The
\npresent\t case is a straightforward illustration of the\tkind
\nof contract contemplated by section 7(d) of the Act.  At all
\nmaterial  times the appellant has been\tdirectly  concerned,
\nfor  his own benefit, in the contract of carrying mail\tbags
\nand postal articles entered into by him with the  Government
\nin the Postal Department.\n<\/p>\n
For  the reasons aforesaid we have not the least  hesitation
\nin  holding that the conclusions arrived at by the  Tribunal
\nare  entirely correct.\tThe appeal is accordingly  dismissed
\nwith costs.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t   Appeal dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India N. Satyanathan vs K. Subramanyan And Others on 29 March, 1955 Equivalent citations: 1955 AIR 459, 1955 SCR (2) 83 Author: B P Sinha Bench: Sinha, Bhuvneshwar P. PETITIONER: N. SATYANATHAN Vs. RESPONDENT: K. SUBRAMANYAN AND OTHERS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29\/03\/1955 BENCH: SINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P. BENCH: SINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P. BOSE, VIVIAN […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-94835","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nN. Satyanathan vs K. Subramanyan And Others on 29 March, 1955 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-satyanathan-vs-k-subramanyan-and-others-on-29-march-1955\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"N. Satyanathan vs K. Subramanyan And Others on 29 March, 1955 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-satyanathan-vs-k-subramanyan-and-others-on-29-march-1955\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1955-03-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-25T19:09:40+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-satyanathan-vs-k-subramanyan-and-others-on-29-march-1955#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-satyanathan-vs-k-subramanyan-and-others-on-29-march-1955\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"N. Satyanathan vs K. Subramanyan And Others on 29 March, 1955\",\"datePublished\":\"1955-03-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-25T19:09:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-satyanathan-vs-k-subramanyan-and-others-on-29-march-1955\"},\"wordCount\":3643,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-satyanathan-vs-k-subramanyan-and-others-on-29-march-1955#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-satyanathan-vs-k-subramanyan-and-others-on-29-march-1955\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-satyanathan-vs-k-subramanyan-and-others-on-29-march-1955\",\"name\":\"N. Satyanathan vs K. Subramanyan And Others on 29 March, 1955 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1955-03-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-25T19:09:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-satyanathan-vs-k-subramanyan-and-others-on-29-march-1955#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-satyanathan-vs-k-subramanyan-and-others-on-29-march-1955\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-satyanathan-vs-k-subramanyan-and-others-on-29-march-1955#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"N. Satyanathan vs K. Subramanyan And Others on 29 March, 1955\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"N. Satyanathan vs K. Subramanyan And Others on 29 March, 1955 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-satyanathan-vs-k-subramanyan-and-others-on-29-march-1955","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"N. Satyanathan vs K. Subramanyan And Others on 29 March, 1955 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-satyanathan-vs-k-subramanyan-and-others-on-29-march-1955","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1955-03-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-25T19:09:40+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-satyanathan-vs-k-subramanyan-and-others-on-29-march-1955#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-satyanathan-vs-k-subramanyan-and-others-on-29-march-1955"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"N. Satyanathan vs K. Subramanyan And Others on 29 March, 1955","datePublished":"1955-03-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-25T19:09:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-satyanathan-vs-k-subramanyan-and-others-on-29-march-1955"},"wordCount":3643,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-satyanathan-vs-k-subramanyan-and-others-on-29-march-1955#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-satyanathan-vs-k-subramanyan-and-others-on-29-march-1955","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-satyanathan-vs-k-subramanyan-and-others-on-29-march-1955","name":"N. Satyanathan vs K. Subramanyan And Others on 29 March, 1955 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1955-03-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-25T19:09:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-satyanathan-vs-k-subramanyan-and-others-on-29-march-1955#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-satyanathan-vs-k-subramanyan-and-others-on-29-march-1955"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-satyanathan-vs-k-subramanyan-and-others-on-29-march-1955#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"N. Satyanathan vs K. Subramanyan And Others on 29 March, 1955"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/94835","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=94835"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/94835\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=94835"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=94835"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=94835"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}