Kerala High Court
N.V.Mohammed Ali vs The Post Master on 10 March, 2016
Author: Alexander Thomas
Bench: Alexander Thomas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2016/16TH CHAITHRA, 1938
WP(C).No. 12222 of 2016 (C)
----------------------------
PETITIONER:
-------------
N.V.MOHAMMED ALI, AGED 61 YEARS,
S/O.ABDULLA,
SECRETARY,NEW MAHE RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION,
P.O.PERINGADI, KANNUR DT.
BY ADVS. SRI.K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH)
SRI.ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH
SRI.PRAJIT RATNAKARAN
RESPONDENTS:
--------------
1. THE POST MASTER
PERINGADI POST OFFICE,
KANNUR DISTRICT-673 312
2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES,
THALASSERY DIVISION,THALASSERY,
KANNUR DISTRICT-670 102
3. CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL,
KERALA CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033
4. THE UNION OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS,
MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND IT,
SANCHAR BHAWAN 20, ASHOKA ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 001
R1-R4 BY ADV. SRI.A.RAJAGOPALAN, CGC
R1-R4 BY SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-04-
2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 12222 of 2016 (C)
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
---------------------------
EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE RESIDENTS
ASSOCIATION DATED 10/03/2016
EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM APPEARED IN MALAYALA
MANORAMA DAILY DATED 12/03/2016
EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE
MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT OF VADAKARA PARLIAMENT DATED
18/03/2016
EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE RECOMMENDATION LETTER DATED
22/03/2016
EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22/03/2016 ISSUED TO THE
3RD RESPONDENT
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL
-----------------------------
// TRUE COPY //
P.A TO JUDGE.
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
-----------------------------
W.P(C).No.12222 Of 2016
---------------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of April, 2016.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner herein is the resident within the territorial limits of Peringadi Post Office which is situated within the limits of New Mahe, Kannur District. It is stated that Peringadi Post Office was established in the year1966 in New Mahe Panchayat and is functioning as a Sub Post Office within the said area. That 4 employees including the Postmaster as well as 8 Mahila Pradhan Agents are working under the 1st respondent-Post Office. That sufficient institutions are functioning within the limits of said post office and all of them are utilising the services of the post office for the last 50 years or so, it is averred. It is stated that recently the petitioner and other members of the locality came to know about the affixure of notice on the notice board of the said Post Office that the 1st respondent-Post Office is going to be downgraded as a Branch Post Office and that on coming to know about this, various representations as per Exts.P-1, P-3, etc., were submitted by the petitioner before the 1st and 2nd respondents requesting them to abstain from proceeding with their impugned action of downgrading ::2::
W.P(C).No.12222 Of 2016 the post office, that the people of the locality had staged Dharna in front of Peringadi Post Office and submitted representation before the Member of Parliament representing the Vadakara constituency to take appropriate action with the authority concerned of the Central Government. That on receipt of such representation, the Member of Parliament concerned had sent a recommendation to the Ministry of Information Technology and Communication as well as to the 3rd respondent-Chief Post Master General to continue the functioning of the present Sub Post office at Peringadi. That inspite of this, the respondents concerned are proceedings with their proposed decision to downgrade the post office without assigning any reason. In the light of these facts and circumstances that the petitioner has instituted the above Writ Petition with the following prayers:
"(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ or order directing the respondents to cancel the Order No.A1/UG/BO dated 17.3.2016 to degrade the Peringadi Sub Post Office into a branch post office.
(ii) Directing the respondents to consider the Ext.P1 representation within such time this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant.
(iii) Grant such other order that this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case."
2. Respondents 1 to 4 have filed a statement dated 1.4.2016 through the Central Government Counsel. In the said statement, it is ::3::
W.P(C).No.12222 Of 2016 averred that the 1st respondent-Sub Post Office is now functioning in a rented premises owned by one C.P.Nabeesu and that she has been persistently demanding the Post Office authorities to vacate the said premises. That because of the incessant demand faced from the landlady, the Post Office authorities are now constrained to shift the functioning of the Post Office to an alternate site. That the authorities have tried through various sources concerned to get an alternate premises in the same area so as to function the Sub Post Office and despite their making various requests to the Grama Panchayat authorities, M.L.A, M.P., etc., to ensure the availability of alternate rented space, none in the locality is coming forward to co-operate with the postal authorities, that the present building is now in a dilapidated condition and the landlady is not taking any steps to carry out any repair/maintenance work inspite of repeated requests of the 1st respondent and the life of the staff working in the building is in danger especially during rainy season and therefore they are constrained to shift the post office from the present premises. The Post Office authorities has floated several tenders for an alternative building and such attempts have been in vain. It is in the light of these facts that the postal authorities are now constrained to take a decision to look for an ::4::
W.P(C).No.12222 Of 2016 alternate premises and that the present Sub Post Office cannot be function in such a smaller premises and that as such smaller premises can only accommodate the requirements of a smaller Branch Post Office, the Postal authorities have taken the decision to downgrade the Sub Post Office as a Branch Post Office and then to shift to a smaller premises as and when such premises are obtained on rental arrangement and it is in the light of these aspects, the Post Master General has issued necessary orders for relocating and consequently downgrading the Post Office. It is further stated that the public will get almost all services in the smaller Branch Post Office as they are now getting from the Sub Post Office and public interest will not be detrimentally affected by the decision to re-locate and downgrade the Post Office. The Writ Petition was admitted by this Court on 1.4.2016 and Sri.A.Rajagopal, learned Central Government Counsel had taken notice for the respondents. This Court has passed the following order on 1.4.2016 which reads as follows:
"Admit W.P.(C). Sri.A.Rajagopal, learned Central Govt. Counsel takes notice for the respondents.
2. Heard Sri.K.R.Avinash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.A.Rajagopal, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the respondents.
3. Perused the statement dated 1.4.2016. The Central Government Counsel submits that the respondents are now constrained to vacate the present ::5::
W.P(C).No.12222 Of 2016 bigger premises as the landlord is insisting to vacate the same and that as the respondents are likely to get only a much smaller alternate space, they have taken a decision to downgrade the present sub post office as a smaller branch post office w.e.f. 1.4.2016. To a specific query posed by this Court, it has come out that the respondents have not got any alternate site so far and they can re-locate only if they get an alternate site. Hence it is ordered in the interest of justice that until the respondents actually shift the functioning of their post office to a smaller alternate space, the decision to downgrade the sub post office as a smaller branch post office will be kept in abeyance for the time being. The Central Government Counsel will get instructions on the contention raised by the petitioner that the services of National Savings Scheme, Money Transfers Scheme, etc. will not be made available, if the post office is downgraded as branch post office.
List on 5.4.2016 for further consideration."
In compliance with the above said direction, the respondents have now filed an additional statement dated 4.4.2016 through the Central Government Counsel. Therein it is stated that though almost all the facilities that are now available in the Sub Post Office will continue to be obtained in the smaller Branch Post Office. The facility of Indian Money Order (IMO), issuance of National Savings Certificate (NSC) and Kisan Vikas Pathra (KVP) certificates will not be available in the Branch Post Office. It is further submitted therein that not even a single Money Order has been booked for the last one year through Peringadi Sub Post Office and further that the public can avail the facility of NSC and KVP from the nearby Post Office at New Mahe, Olavilam and Kariyad South, which are functioning hardly at a distance of about 1.5 kms, 3.4 kms and 5.6 kms. respectively from the present Peringadi Post Office.
::6::
W.P(C).No.12222 Of 2016
3. Heard Sri.K.R.Avinash, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri.A.Rajagopal, learned Central Government Counsel (CGC) appearing for the respondents.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the basis of the instructions from the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner and other members of the locality will ensure that alternate rental space having almost equal size as the present premise would be endeavoured to be made available to the respondent-postal authorities concerned so that they can continue to function as a Sub Post Office. It is also pointed out by the petitioner that members of the locality and the petitioner will also impress upon various functionaries like the President of the Panchayath concerned, M.L.A, M.P., representing the constituency concerned, to ensure that alternate rental space having equal area as the present premises so as to facilitate continued functioning of the Sub Post Office. To a specific query to the respondents as to whether they have already obtained alternate smaller rental premises, the Central Government Counsel, on the basis of the instructions from the respondents concerned, stated that as of now, no alternate space has been obtained. That it is expected that the respondent-postal authorities will be able to secure only alternate smaller premises and that is the ::7::
W.P(C).No.12222 Of 2016 reason which constrained them to re-locate and downgrade the present Sub Post Office as a smaller Branch Post Office so that the Post Office can be accommodated in such alternate smaller premises that may be obtained later on rent. Therefore, it is clear that as of now no alternate premises have been obtained by the respondent-postal authorities. If in case the respondents, through the intervention of other public functionaries as suggested by the petitioner, are able to get alternate rental premises of the same space as the present premises, then certainly there is no necessity for down gradation of the Post Office from a Sub Post Office to a smaller Branch Post Office. The learned Central Government Counsel urged that the petitioners are making tall claim regarding the availability of alternate premises of the same size and that it appears that in all probability the respondent-postal authorities may be able to obtain only smaller alternate premises. In the light of these aspects, the following directions are issued:
(i) Respondents concerned will be at liberty to shift the Post Office from the present premises to any alternate premises that may be obtained on rent as and when the same is secured by the postal authorities. Till they actually shift to a rental premises, the present decision taken on 1.4.2016 to downgrade the 1st respondent-Sub Post Office as a smaller Branch Post Office will be kept in abeyance.
::8::
W.P(C).No.12222 Of 2016
(ii) If at the time of such shifting of the Post Office, the respondents are able to secure alternate rental premises which is of the same size as the present premises, then respondents will ensure that present Post Office is continued to function as a Sub Post office and in such eventuality, the decision taken by the respondents on 1.4.2016 to downgrade the Post Office as a smaller Branch Post Office will then stand automatically cancelled and rescinded.
(iii) If at the time of such shifting, the respondents are able to secure only a smaller alternate rental premises which cannot accommodate the requirements of a Sub Post Office and can fit in only with the requirements of smaller Branch Post Office, then the respondents will certainly be at liberty to implement their decision taken on 1.4.2016 in the matter of down gradation of the Post Office and on that basis respondents will be at liberty to effectuate the relocation of the Post Office as a smaller Branch Post Office.
(iv) Petitioners and others will take all earnest steps as undertaken by them to make available an alternate rental premises to the postal authorities which can meet with the requirements of the continued functioning of the Sub Post Office. With these observations and directions, the Writ Petition (Civil) stands finally disposed of.
ALEXANDER THOMAS, Judge.
bkn/-