Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. 2012 STPL(Web) 132 (SC), Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold:
“13. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay.
Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.” Consequently, departmental delay is not a ground to condone the delay.
Let us come to the merits of this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that it was beyond the control of the opposite party to serve the letter upon the complainant. It is explained that there was agitation by the gujjars. He has placed news clips in order to support his case. He argued that under the circumstances, no negligence can be attributed to the respondent.
9. This is not a coherent argument. A person has to spend Rs.25/- in the hope that his application would reach the destination in time. Otherwise, the application could be sent through ordinary post, it would cost him Rs.5/- only. It is the duty of the State to see to it that the letter reaches within 24 hours or at the most within 48 hours from the date of its receipt. It is no part of the duty of subject to anticipate that the letter would not reach the destination due to agitation. The postal department should under all the probabilities, whether it is in its control or beyond its control, must see to it that the letters reach the destination in time.
10. The second submission raised by learned counsel for the petitioner was that Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 comes to the rescue of the respondent. He commented that there lies a rub for the consumer fora not to speak their mind in this context as they are not armed with this power.
11. This argument, too, deserves no consideration. The Post Office is not supposed to play with the carrier of the citizens of the country. The letters sent through speed post are always urgent and emergent. If there is delay due to some agitation, it is the duty of the State to find out some other method to prevent the delay in such like matters. The District Forum was pleased to observe:
“Section 6 not providing a windscreen to the postal authorities to justify all acts of negligence, remissness, inaction etc. on their part in discharge of their official duties-Not delivering the speed post article to its addressee clearly constituted a willful act of deficiency in service on their party.”
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
1. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer invited applications for the posts of sub-inspectors in Rajasthan Police. Pushpinder Singh Rajput sent his application for the said post on 28.12.2010 through speed post. He had to incur Rs. 25/- for sending the application through speed post. The application could not reach the destination till 31.12.2010, the last day. It was tendered to the Rajasthan Public Service Commission on 4.1.2011 after four days of the last date i.e. 31.12.2010. The complainant received back the envelope on 12.1.2011 with the remarks ‘time barred’.
2. Aggrieved by that order, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against Sr. Superintendent of Post and Telegraph Department, Alwar. The complaint was allowed and a sum of Rs.20,000/- was paid to him as compensation.
3. Aggrieved by that order, an appeal was preferred before the State Commission which vide its cryptic order dated 13.4.2012 dismissed the appeal. Thereafter this revision petition has been filed.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the said revision petition is liable to be dismissed on two counts. The filing of the revision petition was delayed by 71 days. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed an application for condonation of delay. The delay is explained in para 2 of the said application which is reproduced as follows:-
“2.That the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur Rajasthan had passed an order dated 13-4-12 in the First Appeal No. and the same is under challenge under this Hon’ble Commission. It is submitted that the copy of the order was received by Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Alwar on 19-4-2012. There after it was sent for legal opinion from its panel counsel and the same was received by this office through Government Counsel Shri Mukesh Agarwal, Sr. Advocate with his opinion on 28-4-2012 for further course of action. The copy of judgment was sent to RO on 03-5-12 vide this office letter No. Alw/CR/DCPF 622/11 dated 03-5-12. The Chief Post Master General, Rajasthan Circle vide their letter No. BDC/SP/53-33/10 dated 11-5-12 has conveyed his approval to take up the case for Revision Petition in the Hon’ble National Commission and to depute suitable officer to the Ministry of Law & Justice, Department of Legal Affair with regard to the filing Revision Petition. After the permission of the Chief Post Master General Rajasthan Circle, Jaipur all the documents pertaining to the case was forwarded to the Directorate, New Delhi for their perusal. It is further submitted that the nomination of the counsel was received from the Directorate, New Delhi to this office and there after the Department appointed Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma Office Assistant Alwar Division and handed over the complete documents of the present case with a direction to meet the nominated counsel at Delhi.”
5. We are not satisfied with the explanation given by the petitioner.
6. In the authority reported in Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. 2012 STPL(Web) 132 (SC), Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold:
“13. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay.
Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.”
7. Consequently, departmental delay is not a ground to condone the delay. Therefore, the case is barred by time.
8. Let us come to the merits of this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that it was beyond the control of the opposite party to serve the letter upon the complainant. It is explained that there was agitation by the gujjars. He has placed news clips in order to support his case. He argued that under the circumstances, no negligence can be attributed to the respondent.
9. This is not a coherent argument. A person has to spend Rs.25/- in the hope that his application would reach the destination in time. Otherwise, the application could be sent through ordinary post, it would cost him Rs.5/- only. It is the duty of the State to see to it that the letter reaches within 24 hours or at the most within 48 hours from the date of its receipt. It is no part of the duty of subject to anticipate that the letter would not reach the destination due to agitation. The postal department should under all the probabilities, whether it is in its control or beyond its control, must see to it that the letters reach the destination in time.
10. The second submission raised by learned counsel for the petitioner was that Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 comes to the rescue of the respondent. He commented that there lies a rub for the consumer fora not to speak their mind in this context as they are not armed with this power.
11. This argument, too, deserves no consideration. The Post Office is not supposed to play with the carrier of the citizens of the country. The letters sent through speed post are always urgent and emergent. If there is delay due to some agitation, it is the duty of the State to find out some other method to prevent the delay in such like matters. The District Forum was pleased to observe:
“Section 6 not providing a windscreen to the postal authorities to justify all acts of negligence, remissness, inaction etc. on their part in discharge of their official duties-Not delivering the speed post article to its addressee clearly constituted a willful act of deficiency in service on their party.”
12. We are in full agreement with the abovesaid observation. The willful default on the part of the petitioner stands proved to the hilt. The petitioner’s assumptions are all wet.
13. The revision petition is without force and therefore dismissed.
……………Sd/-………….
(J. M. MALIK, J.)
PRESIDING MEMBER
………Sd/-………………
(VINAY KUMAR)
MEMBER
Naresh/reserved
No comments:
Post a Comment