Holding

Delivery of postal articles to a mailbox situated in the building where the addressee resides is deemed delivery at the addressee’s house/office and is within the powers conferred by the Indian Post Office Act, rendering the 1996 Order valid.

Summary

The appellant challenged the Delivery of Postal Articles Orders of 1991 and 1996, arguing that delivering mail to a mailbox in a high‑rise building was beyond the powers granted under the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, and that existing buildings lacking mailbox space should be exempt. The High Court upheld the orders, and the Supreme Court, on special leave, examined the statutory interpretation of Section 3(c) and Section 21(3) of the Act. The Court held that a mailbox located in the building where the addressee resides falls within the meaning of delivery at the addressee’s house or office and is therefore permissible. It also found the exemption provisions and the guidelines issued under clause 4 of the 1996 Order to be reasonable, directing minor modifications to the guidelines. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the 1996 Order upheld.

Issues considered

Whether the Delivery of Postal Articles Orders of 1991 and 1996 are ultra vires the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, particularly Section 3(c) and Section 21(3).
Whether delivery of mail to a mailbox in a building, not within the addressee’s house or office, is permissible under the Act.
Whether existing multi‑storey buildings that lack space for mailboxes can be exempted from the 1996 Order on grounds of fairness and reasonableness.

Legislation cited

Indian Post Office Act, 1898s. 21(3), s. 3(c)

Subjects

postal deliverymailboxhigh‑rise buildingsIndian Post Office Actultra viresexemptionmunicipal regulationsdelivery orderSection 3(c)Section 21(3)

Judgment

A NITIN RASHMIKANT KANTAWALA
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.
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.
1G
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
addressee to be put at the ground floor of the building in which the c
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,
it has been submitted that necessary provision should be made in the G
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 agent or other person
considered to be authorised to receive the article and does not postulate
delivery in other manner and that delivery in a mail box which is not kept
in the house or office of the addressee in not permissible under the said
provision. We do not find any force in this submission. Under Section 3(c)
C it is permissible to make delivery of the postal article at the house or office
of the addressee. The expression "house or office of the addressee" in
Section 3(c) cannot be confined to the part of the building in which the
addressee is residing or has his office. The said expression would include
the building in which the residence of office of the addressee is situated.
The delivery of a postal article in a mail box kept in the building in which
D the residence or office of the addressee is located has to be treated as
delivery at the house of office of the addressee. The provision in the 1996
Order regarding delivery of the postal article in the mail box of the
addressee cannot, therefore, be held to be impermissible under Section
3(c) of the ;\ct.
E
The other question that remains to be considered is whether the
provision for having a mail box for the residents in existing buildings in
Bombay city which do not have space for keeping mail boxes can be
regarded as fair and reasonable. In this regard, it may be mentioned that
during the pendency of the Writ Petition in the High Court, a Committee
F of Members of Parliament was appointed by the Central Government to
examine the Mail Box Delivery Scheme in Bombay city. The said Commit-
tee submitted its report in November 1992. In its report the Committee has
pointed out that the old buildings in congested localities of Bombay mostly
consist of ground and four upper floors and their passages are very narrow
G and that it would be difficult to compel the occupants to receive their mail
through mail boxes provided on the ground floor. The Committee felt that
it would create great hardship if the schemr: is implemented in buildings
consisting of ground and four upper floors only which were mostly con-
structed prior to he year 1940 and are tenanted premises and that in many
cases such buildings will have to be exempted from the operation ofthe
H scheme. The Committee made the following recommendations :
'
)-
N.R.KANTAWALAv. U.O.I. 743

"CHAPTER 5: RECOMMENDATIONS: A
)'--
5.1. Considering all the aspects of the Mail Box Scheme and the
objections of the Citizens particularly on the ground of lack
of space for putting up Mail Boxes and appreciating the
merits of the Scheme, the Committee makes the. following
recommendation : B

_..,, 5.2. The Postal authorities may undertake rigorous campaign to
create awareness among the citizens regarding the usefulness
of the scheme. Government of Maharashtra may also be
approached for making appropriate amendments in the Born-
bay Rent Act to enable tenants to put up mail box in the
c
common passages of buildings. Voluntary acceptance in such
cases may be encouraged by the Postal Department.

5.3. The Mail Box Scheme should be introduced in the b_uildings
which shall be hereinafter constructed and in the building D
_;- .~ which are still under construction. For this purpose, it is
gratifying to note that the Development Control Regulations
for Greater Bombay 1991 issued by the Urban Development
Department, Government of Maharashtra, and published in
the Maharashtra Gazette part I Kaukan Divisional Supple-
E
ment dated 21.2.1991 contains a provision, 'a letter box of
appropriate dimensions shall be provided on the ground floor
of residence, Commercial buildings with 5 or more storeys,
to the satisfaction of the Commissioner'. The Postal Depart-
ment, therefore, may prevail upon the Municipal Commis-
...
sioner of Greater Bombay not to pass any building proposal F
unless the aforesaid condition of the letter box is complied
with and not to give completion certificate to buildings under
construction till the aforesaid condition is satisfied. Thus a
good beginning can be made and in course of time may many
new buildings in Bombay will have implemented this scheme.
G
5.4. The scheme should apply also to the existing high rise build-
ings with 6 storeys (ground + 5 floors) a11d more. However
- -i
in these cases also where in respect of any particular building
genuine hardships are placed before the Postmaster General
Bombay or his authorised nominee and the same are found H
744 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] 1 S.C.R.
A to be true the said building may be exempted from the
scheme. Most of such buildings are on ownership basis and
therefore the problem of landlord objecting will not arise.
Except the new building to the constructed as stated in para
5.3. and the high rise buildings as stated in para 5.4. all the
existing buildings should be exempted from the scheme.
B
5.5. As already stated earlier in para 3.11 while there may be
instances of genuine hardships likely to arise from the im-
plementation of the scheme there are some merits also in the
scheme. The scheme cannot, therefore be rejected outright.
c It will have to be introduced cautiously without causing
hardship to the people Public awareness is to be created while
introducing the scheme.

5.6. Adequate time, say 3 months, may be given to those who are
required to comply with the scheme.
D
5.7. The Committee also strongly feels that the approach of the
• Ministry of Communications and the Government of India
that Postal Department is a commercial department may be
.reviewed and revised. Like Health and Education, it should
be considered as a Department rendering social service to
E the society and from that point of view the general ban on
sanctioning the additional postal staff particularly the
Postmen, and the strict out on the expenses on opening of
new post officers may be given up. This department may be
treated as a department rendering social service to the
F citizens at large, and keeping in view the essential require-
ments of the citizens for maintaining vital communications
and requirements of the staff for catering to the needs of the
public post offices be given top priority in the budgetary
provisions of the Government."
G Keeping in view the recommendations of the said Committee, by
clause 2 of the 1996 Order multi-storeyed buildings having five storeys
(groudd plus four floors) are excluded from the ambit of the said order.
Furthermore, the 1996 Order contains a provision in clause 4 regarding
exemption of certain buildings from the ambit of the said order. Clause 4
H reads as follows :

•
N.R.KANTAWALAv. U.0.I. 745
"Clause 4. Power to exempt - Where there is genuine difficulty in A
complying with the provisions of this order in a particular building,
the Chief Post Master General, Post Master General Senior Su-
perintendent of Post Offices, or as the case may be, the superin-
tendent of Post Offices, may for reasons to be recorded in writing,
exempt the said building from the provisions of this order." B

The Department has proposed the following guidelines for exercising
the power to relax delivery of postal article under the 1996 Order for
existing buildings as per clause 4 of the said order :

PROPOSED GUIDELINES FOR EXERCISING THE c
POWERS TO RELAX DELIVERY OF POSTAL ARTICLES
ORDER 1995 FOR EXISTING BUILDINGS AS PROVIDED
FOR IN RULE OF THE ABOVE CITED ORDER.

1. The application could be made before the Supdt. of Post
D
officers/SSPOs/PHG/CPMG by 10.2.97 this date is tentatively
fixed for Bombay and will be decided separately for each
area.

2. The authorised official from the Post Office would be sent to
the premises within 7 days of receipt of the application to E
report on whether post boxes could be fixed on the ground
floor or find out a viz media of installation of a community
box for delivery of postal articles to an authorised person
which could be the caretaker of the building/society. He will
submit his report within three days from the date of his visit.
F
3. The applicant will be given the extract of report and he may
make his representation against or in favour within 3 days of
the report and after considering the report of the authorised
officer, representation, if any, of the applicant, the authority
to which the application was addressed will decide the matter. G

4. The application will be decided within one month of its
receipt and the decision conveyed to the applicant.

5. During the period of deliberation of the application the postal
articles will continue to be delivered at the doorstep of the H
746 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] 1 S.C.R.

A addressee or at a common place agreed to by the
Caretaker/management of the building/society''.

The aforementioned guidelines contain adequate provisions for en-
suring that the power to grant exemption under clause 4 of the 1996 Order
B is exercise_d reasonably..

We would, however, direct that the following changes be made in the
guidelines :

(i) In paragraph 1 of the guidelines the last date fixed for submis-
C sion of applications shall be March 31, 1997, instead of February
10, 1997.

(ii) In paragraph 2 of the guidelines it should be prescribed that
the officer before going to the building concerned for inspection
shall give prior notice of the date and time of his visit to the
D building to the person who has submitted the application referred
to in paragraph 1 of the guidelines.

This takes care of the existing buildings.

E As regards buildings to be constructed in future, we find that the
Urban Development Department of the Government of Maharashtra has
made the Development Control Regulations for Greater Bombay, 1991
which have been published in Maharashtra Government Part-I dated
February 21, 1991. The said regulations provide that "a letter box of an
appropriate dimension shall be provided on the ground floor of residence,
F
commercial buildings with five or more storeys to the satisfaction of the
Commissioner". The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay must en-
sure that no plan for a building is approved unless it contains provisions
for space for mail boxes and no plan is being sanctioned which does not
contain such provision, the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay will
G also ensure that no occupancy and completion certificate is granted in
respect of any building if it does not satisfy the aforesaid requirement.

Since the 1996 Order is applicable throughout the country and
high-rise multi-storeyed buildings are coming up in other towns, it is
H expected that the States as well as the Union Territories shall make suitable
N.R.KANTAWAIAv. U.O.I. 747
~ provisions on the same lines as have been made in Maharashtra and that A
_,,. the local authorities in the various towns will follow the above mentioned
directions given \vith regard to sanctioning of plans for new buildings and
granting of completion and occupancy certificates for such buildings.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
B
G.N. Appeal disposed of.

..

...

-