LexCESC LTD. versus CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2012) 5 S.C.R. 1055 CESC LTD. v. CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 2606 of 2006 etc.) MAY 11, 2012 [R.M. LODHA AND SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.] POST OFFICE ACT, 1898: ss. 11 and 12 - Demand for deficit amount of postage from sender of postal articles - Held: In the absence of any breach of the conditions of licence, the provisions of clauses A B c 11 (1 O)(xv) and 34 of Post Office Guide are not attracted - It is apparent that due to a wrong intimation given by the Postal 0 Authority, the Company affixed the postal stamp of Rs.11- per bill, treating it as 'book post' and the staff of the Postal Department without any objection cleared and delivered it to the respective addressees - The mistake having been committed by the Postal Authority and there being failure on E the part of office of the Postal Authority to check the postal articles and postage for recovering the amount from the addressee, it is not open for the Postal Authority to pass on such liability on the sender-company or to recover the same from the company - The demand notice being not proper, is set aside - Post Office Guide - Clauses 11(10)(xv) and 34. F The appellant-company, engaged in the supply of electricity, installed 'franking machines' and provided space to the Post Office to set up a sub-office for the purpose of receiving 'franked' monthly electricity G consumption bills addressed to the consumers. By letter dated 29.5.1997, the Director of Postal Service informed the appellant-company that as per revised postal tariff w.e.f. 1.6.1997, charges for monthly consumption bill, if 1055 H 1056 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2012] 5 S.C.R. A it was posted as 'Book', 'Pattern' and 'Sample packets' would be Rs. 1/- for first 50 gms or fraction thereof. Based on the said communication, the appellant-company made the payment for the period from 1.6.1997 to 29.10.1998 treating the posts as 'book post', and affixing Rs. 1/- per B postal article. On 29.10.1998, the appellant received another letter informing that the letter dated 29.5.1997 was treated as cancelled and the 'monthly consumption Bill' did not come under the category of 'book post' I 'book packets' and such type of bills could be posted by C affixing postage stamps as applicable to 'letter mail' with immediate effect. Thereafter, the company started posting the consumption bills affixing Rs. 3/- stamps. The Vigilance Officer, Department of Post, by letter dated 18.6.1999 made an additional claim for Rs. 1,83,89,410/- D from the company for the period from 1.6.1997 to 29.10.1998, on the ground that postage rate from 1.6.1997 was Rs. 2/- per 'Book post' and Rs. 3/- from 30.8.1998. The writ petition filed by the company was allowed by the Single Judge of the High Court holding that the demand notice was contrary to s. 11 (2) of the Postal Act, 1898. E However, it was held that refund of Rs. 50 lacs deposited by the company pursuant to the interim order would be subject to the decision of the respondent authorities. On the appeals filed by both the company as also by the Postal Authorities, the Division Bench of the High Court F upheld the demand notice and further held that the Post Master General was completely empowered by Clause 11.5 (xv) and Clause 34 of the Post Office Guide read with s. 12 of the Act to recover the amount specified under the demand notice. G In the instant appeals filed by the company the question for consideration before the Court was: "whether the respondents have the authority and power under the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 or the Post Office H Guide or any other Rule/guidelines to demand the alleged CESC LTD. v. CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL & 1057 ORS. deficit amount of postage from the "sender" of the postal A articles, after receiving the same from the "sender" without any objection to the deficit amount and after delivering the postage articles to the addressee without claiming any deficit amount from the "addressee". Allowing the appeals, the Court B HELD: 1.1 In the instant case, it has not been alleged by the Postal Authority that the Company has breached any of the conditions of licence. In the absence of any such allegation relating to a breach, the provisions of C Clause 11(10) (xv) or Clause 34 of the Post Office Guide are not attracted. The Division Bench of the High Court erred in holding that the provisions of Clause 11(10) (xv) and Clause 34 are at
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.