Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY 2013 3RD MAGHA 193 WP(C).No. 23175 of 2012 (V) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- UNNI CHITTOOPARAMBIL, EDAVOOR P.O., KOOVAPADI VIA, CHERANELLOOR, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM-683 544. BY ADVS.SRI.SHAJI THOMAS SRI.N.NAGARESH SRI.BINU PAUL SRI.T.V.VINU SRI.G.JAYAPRAKASH RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. POSTMASTER GENERAL, CENTRAL REGION, OFFICE OF THE POSTMASTER GNERAL, KADAVANTHARA, KOCHI-682 020.
2. SENIOR SUPERINTENDANT OF POST OFFICES, ALUVA DIVISION, ALUVA-683 101.
3. POSTMASTER, EDAVOOR P.O., ALUVA-683 544. R1 TO 3 BY ADV. SRI.T.SANJAY, CGC BY SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.23175/2012 V APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 17 4/2012 SUBMITTED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 17 4/2012 SUBMITTED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 17 4/2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.CR/10-22/1-12 DATED 4 5/2012 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20 6/2012 OF THE PRINCIPAL GENERAL MANAGER (TELECOME) BSNL ADDRESSED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.CR/10-22/11-12 DATED 11 7/2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7. TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 3 9/2012 SUBMITTED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P8. TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLDEGEMENT DATED 3 9/2012 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (PG). EXHIBIT P9. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19 7/2012 SUBMITTED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P10. TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION DATED 17 9/2012 RECEIVED UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION (RTI FOR SHORT) ACT FROM THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (CPIO & PG). RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: R1: COPY OF THE TEST LETTER. R1(A): COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE TEST LETTER. R2: COPY OF ONE SIDE OF THE ENVELOPE. R2(A): COPY OF THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ENVELOPE. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
.............................................................................. W.P. ) No.23175 OF 201.......................................................................... Dated this the 23rd January, 2013 JUDGMENT
Alleged failure in effecting delivery of some postal articles to the petitioner, by the Postman, is the subject matter of challenge. Grievance is more with regard to the lethargy shown by the Departmental authorities in dealing with the complaint preferred by the petitioner, referring to the lapse on the part of the Postman.
2. The sequence of events as narrated in the writ petition shows that the petitioner, who is a lawyer by profession, had occasion to prefer several complaints against the Postman for not delivering the postal articles addressed to him , particularly the communication issued from the Kerala Human Rights Commission, Thiruvananthapuram. Inspite of bringing the complaint to the notice of the authorities concerned, no proper action was taken. The petitioner also alleged that the bills, which were being despatched to him from the office of the BSNL were also not delivered; as a result of which much loss and hardships were caused to him. It is also brought to the notice of this Court W.P. ) No.23175 OF 201.2 that the BSNL authorities had also addressed the postal authorities in this regard, vide Ext.P5. Pursuant to the complaint preferred, the petitioner was let known as per Ext.P4 by the Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Aluva Division that the concerned Post Man was warned against recurrence of any such event, expressing 'regret' over the inconvenience caused, if any. The petitioner preferred some other complaints as well, followed by reminders, as borne by Ext.P9. The relief sought for in the writ petition is to direct the respondents to ensure prompt delivery of all postal articles addressed to the petitioner at his postal address and also to command the first respondent to complete the enquiry initiated against the Postman of Edavoor Post Office, with notice to the petitioner .
3. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit rebutting the averments and allegations raised in the writ petition. It is stated that, while enquiries were going on with regard to the misbehaviour of the Postman by name T.S. Joy, (Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Deliverer), the petitioner sent two more complaints with regard to tampering of one postal article addressed to him W.P. ) No.23175 OF 201.3 and insertion of photocopy of the original order dated 07.03.2012 of the Kerala State Human Rights Commission in HRMP No.3052/2010. In the course of further steps, the respondents sent a 'test letter' to the petitioner, as borne by Exts.R1 and R1 (a) and it was found that the letter was duly served to the petitioner. Even though there was no evidence as to any lapse on the part of the Postman, he was warned by the second respondent, so as to avert any complaints in the future. Still, further complaints were preferred by the petitioner and those were also enquired into, as borne by various proceedings forming part of the records. Though appropriate arrangements were made to ensure that the postal articles were delivered to the petitioner on time (by enabling to have them collected personally from the Post Office) and it was let known to him, he did not turn up to collect the postal articles, which in turn was later delivered to him, through his brother. The petitioner was however insisting that the concerned Postman should be proceeded against and punished, which was not acceptable to the departmental authorities, for the fact that there was no W.P. ) No.23175 OF 201.4 evidence at all, as to any misconduct or lapse on the part of the Postman. Further enquiry made by the departmental authorities revealed, as given in paragraph '15' of the counter affidavit that the petitioner is actually practicing in the High Court of Kerala and is residing with his family at Ernakulam; whereas he comes to his house at Edavoor (where his mother is residing) only occasionally. It is also stated that there is absolutely no complaint whatsoever for anybody else, against the service being rendered by the concerned Postman by name T.S.Joy, for the past 18 years . Respondents point out in paragraph '16' that the probable reason for filing complaints and for filing the writ petition might be because of the fact that the brother of the concerned Postman had preferred a 'cyber crime' against the nephew of the petitioner and that the petitioner wants to retaliate against the said person by causing to proceed against his brother - the Post Man concerned. The petitioner has sought to rebut the said version by filing a reply affidavit that he does not have any animosity against the Postman and that there is no personal ill-will . W.P. ) No.23175 OF 201.5 4. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the pleadings and proceedings, as projected from the part of the respondents clearly establish, that there is no lapse at all on the part of the departmental authorities or the Postman. No proceedings are warranted in respect of the alleged cause of action against the Postman, more so when the petitioner has not chosen to implead him in the party array, either in his official capacity or in the personal capacity. Interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk