NITIN RASHMIKANT KANT AW ALA versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] 1 S.C.R. 740 · Decided: 31-01-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL, S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
NITIN RASHMIKANT KANT AW ALA 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
JANUARY 31, 1997 
B 
[S.C. AGRAWAL ANDS. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.] 
Indian Post Office Act, 1898 : 
S.21(3)--Delivery of Postal Articles Order, 1996-Delivery of a postal 
C article in a mail box kept in the building in which the residence or office of 
the addressee is located-To be treated as delivery at the house or office of 
the addressee-l'ower to grant exemption-Application-Inspection of the 
premises-Directions issued-Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay to 
ensure that no plan for a building is approved unless it contains provisions 
for space for mail boxes-No plan to be sanctioned which does not contain 
D such pmvision:-Also to ensure that 110 occupancy and completion Ce1ti[ic!lte 
is granted in respect of any building if it does not satisfy the require-
ment-Since the 1996 order is applicable throughout the Counby and high-rise 
and multi-storeyed buildings are coming up in other Towns, States and Union 
Tenit01ies to make suitable provisions on the same lines as have been made 
E in Maharashtra State. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 573 of 
1997. 
From the Judgment and Order Dated 16.9.94 of the Bombay High 
F 
Court in W.P. No. 25 of 1992. 
1G 
Dr. Nitin R. Kantawala and Ms. H. Wahi for the Appellant. 
P.P. Malhotra, Hemani Sharma, C.V.S. Rao, (D.N. Mishra) for JBD 
& Co. for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Special leave granted. 
This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Bombay High 
H Court dated September 16, 1994 whereby the Writ Petition No. 25 of 1992 
740 
N.R. KANTAWALA v. U.O.I. 
741 
filed by the appellant has been dismissed. 
A 
The said Writ Petition relates to the enforcement of the "Delivery to 
Mail Order 1991" (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1991 Order') issued by 
the Director General of Posts and Telegraphs in exercise of the powers 
conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 21 of the Indian Post Office Act, B 
1898 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act) vide notification dated May 29, 
1991. The 1991 Order was issued to deal with the growing problem of 
-~ 
delivery of mail in high-rise multi-storeyed buildings that have come up as 
a result of vertical expansion of the large towns in the country. It provided 
for delivery of unregistered mail by the Post Office in the mail box of the c 
addressee to be put at the ground floor of the building in which the 
addressed is located. By the impugned judgment, the High Court has 
upheld the validity of the said order. While the matter was pending in this 
Court, the 1991 Order has been superseded by the "Delivery of Postal 
Articles Order, 1996" (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1996 Order') which 
" 
has also been issued by the Director General of Posts and Telegraphs in D 
exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of the Act vide notifica-
tion dated November 24, 1995. 
We have heard the appellant in person as well as Shri P.P. Malhotra, 
the learned senior counsel appearing for the Union of India, and Shri D.N. E 
Mishra, the learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation of Greater 
Bombay. 
The appellant has made a grievance mainly with reference to the 
~ 
conditions in the city of Bombay and especially in respect of the existing 
, 
F 
buildings. It has been urged that in most of the existing multi-storeyed 
buildings no space had been provided for keeping mail boxes for the 
residents and since the facilities of mail boxes cannot be provided in such 
buildings, the same should be excluded from the operation of the 1996 
Order. As regards the buildings which would be coming up in the future, 
G 
it has been submitted that necessary provision should be made in the 
regulations governing grant of sanction of the plan as well as the comple-
.., 
tion and occupancy certificate to ensure that the suitable provision is made 
.. 
for installing mail boxes in such buildings. 
The appellant has also raised a legal submission about the validity of H 
742 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1997] 1 S.C.R. 
A the 1991 Order and has invited our attention to clause (C) of Section 3 of 
the Act wherein the expressions "in course of transmission by post" and 
"delivery" have been defined. The submission is that 1991 Order as well as 
1996 Order are ultra vires the provisions of the Act because clause ( c) of 
Section 3 of the Act only postulates delivery at the house or office of the 
B addressee, or to the addressee or his servant or 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.