Calcutta High Court
Naba Mudran Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. vs The Chief Post Master General And Ors. on 14 September, 2005
Equivalent citations: AIR2006CAL30, 2006(3)CHN729, AIR 2006 CALCUTTA 30, 2006 (2) AKAR (NOC) 166 (CAL) (2006) 3 CAL HN 729, (2006) 3 CAL HN 729
Author: Jayanta Kumar Biswas
Bench: Jayanta Kumar Biswas
ORDER Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.
1. This writ petition has been taken out alleging delay on the part of the Indian postal authorities in providing facilities to the petitioners for sending bulk mails through surface air lifted mail and airmail services to various parts of the United Kingdom.
2. The petitioners received a business order from their foreign client (UNICEF UK) dated May 5th 2005, relevant portions whereof are: 'This is to confirm that UNIGEF would like to produce in the region of 450,000 letters printed by your company and posted using the Indian postal service between the 16th May and the 31st August. After the 31st August we may look to carry out further mailings but these will be confirmed closer to the time."
3. The foreign party started producing similar letters and sending them in bulk using the postal services of this country, for the first time in 1997, for both the purposes they engaged the petitioners. From then the yearly practice continued smoothly till the year 2004. Charges payable ordinarily on a similar letter were always paid by the petitioners. When they approached for the requisite facilities for carrying out. similar exercises in this year (2005), the postal authorities decided to stop the practice, on the ground that the foreign party adopted it with the object of profiting by the more favourable rate conditions of this country.
4. Their stand is that unless the petitioners pay the difference between the amount of terminal and other dues that the foreign party (the actual sender) would pay, if it were to post the mails in the country where it has its office, and the amount of terminal and other dues payable on the basis of existing internal rates of this country, they shall not be granted any special facility for sending the bulk mails by using the postal services of this country. The postal authorities have claimed that for the past transactions of the petitioners and their foreign client, the foreign country has already recovered by adjustment, a huge amount on account of reimbursement claim under provisions of the rules prescribed by the Universal Postal Union. Their further stand is that they are under no statutory or other obligation to forward the postal articles, even if put at their disposal, to the country of destination (the UK).
5. I am unable to agree with counsel for the petitioners that in view of provisions of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, Section 2(f), 3 and 10, postal authorities of this country are under a statutory obligation to accept and forward the bulk mails in question, once charges according to existing internal rates are paid by his clients. Provisions of Sections 2(f) and 3 are not relevant, while the one defines the expression "postage," the other says what are to be meant by the expression "in course of transmission by post" and "delivery". Section 10, in its two Sub-sections, provides : "(1) Where arrangements are in force with the United Kingdom, or with any British possession or foreign country, for the transmission by post of postal articles between India and the United Kingdom or such possession or country, the Central Government may, in conformity with the provisions of such arrangements, declare what postage rates and other sums shall be charged, in respect of such postal articles, and may make rules as to the scale of weight, terms and conditions subject to which the rates so declared shall be charged. (2) Unless and until such declaration as foresaid is made, the existing rates and regulations shall continue in force."
6. There is no dispute that arrangements are in force for the transmission by post of postal articles between India and the United Kingdom. Both these countries are members of the Universal Postal Union, which duly drew up in the Universal Postal Convention the rules applicable throughtout the international postal service. In the Letter Post Regulations, the Postal Operations Council drew up the measures for ensuring the implementation of the rules applicable in common throughout the international postal service and the provisions on the Letter Post.
7. Provisions made in Article 43 of the Convention relieve a member country of the obligation to forward or deliver to the addressee letter-post items which senders residing in its territory post or cause to be posted in a foreign country with the object of profiting by the more favourable rate conditions there. They also entitle the administration of destination, inter alia, to claim from the administration of posting, payment commensurate with the costs incurred, when the sender posts or causes to be posted letter-post items in large quantities, and If the amount of terminal dues to be received is lower than the sum that would have been received if the mail had been posted in the country where the sender resides. Provisions made in Article RE 204.3.5 cast an obligation on the sender of the item to show his name and address with the postcode number or deliverty zone number, if any, on the item. Article RE 205.8.2 provides that the sender of the bulk items shall be considered to be the person or organization that actually posts the items. In terms of provisions made in Article RE 1015 the administration of destination is entitled to request the administration of origin for payment specific to bulk mail.
8. It is therefore clear that provisions of the Indian Post Office, Act, 1898 do not cast any unqualified obligation or duty on the postal authorities; of this country to transmit the postal articles sought to be sent by the petitioners to various persons in the United Kingdom on payment of postage at the rates declared for letter-post items in general. On the ground that according to the rates of postage and other chargeable sums, declared in conformity with the provisions of the Convention and the Regulations, the petitioners are liable to pay more for sending the bulk mails; in my opinion, the postal authorities of this country can refuse to provide any facility to the petitioners. Exactly such a thing has happened in this case. Referring to the past transactions and recovery effected by the foreign country, the postal authorities, and in my view quite rightly, have decided to stop the practice.
9. I am unable to agree with counsel for the petitioners that since it is his clients, and not their foreign client, who should be treated as the actual senders of the proposed letter-post items or that since the articles are sought to be mailed from a developing to a developed country, and not to a developing country, provisions of Articles 43, 49 and 51 of the Convention, "and Article RE 1015 of the Regulations would have no manner of application to the case. It is apparent from the business order that the foreign party is the actual sender of the items. The samples of the items, produced by the postal authorities, also show that the foreign party is the sender I am unable to apreciate the attempt made by the petitioners to say that the samples produced by the postal authorities were fabricated by the respondents. The communication dated May 26, 2005 (at page 107 of G.A. 1686 of 2005) is absolutely of no significance, It does not show that the postal authorities of the foreign country decided not to charge the Government of this country for the past and the proposed present transactions of the petitioners and their foreign client.
10. As to claim of the postal authorities regarding recovery effected by the postal authorities of the foreign country for the past transaction, counsel for the petitioners has said that the documents produced do not corroborate the statements made in the affidavits. I do not find any reason to agree with him. Statements have been made by the postal authoities on oath that for the past transactions of the petitioners and their foreign client, the postal authorities of the foreign country, have already recovered the requisite amount from the postal authority ties of this country, Not only the claim statements have been produced, but the postal authorities have also stated that the petitioners are their only bulk mail sending customers from Kolkata. Reasons have been disclosed why the liability could not be passed on to the petitioners as yet. There is no reason to disbelieve the facts stated by the postal authorities in their affidavits.
11. Once it is seen that for the similar past transactions, the postal authorities of the foreign country have already charged the postal authorities of this country, and recovered the amount there is no scope or reason to hold that the present decision of the respondents to stop the practice, unless payments made according to rules of the Universal Postal Union is an unreasonable or arbitrary or unfair decision.
12. For these reasons I hold that no action or inaction on the part of the respondents warrants any interference. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with costs.
13. Urgent certified xerox copy of this judgment and order shall be supplied to the parties on the usual undertaking.