AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Nagamuthu, J.—Challenge in this writ petition is to the validity of the note appeared to Rule 30 of the Indian Post Office Rules, 1933
issued by the Union of India in exercise of the powers conferred by the Indian Post Office Act, 1898.
The petitioner is a Company, which publishes various magazines and periodicals such as, India Today International, India Today - English, India
Today - Hindi, India Today - Gujarathi, India Today - Tamil, India Today - Telugu, India Today - Malayalam, Business Today, Computers
Today, Teens Today, Cosmopolitan and Journal of Applied Medicine. The above publications, according to the petitioner, have been registered as
newspapers as per Section 9 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 (hereinafter referred to as ""the Act""). u/s 7 of the Act, the Central Government
has been empowered to issue Notification in the Official Gazette to fix rates of inland postage and other sums to be charged in respect of postal
articles sent by the inland post under this Act, and to make rules as to the scale of weights, terms and conditions subject to which the rates so fixed
shall be charged. It further proceeds to say, ""provided that the highest rate of postage, when prepaid, shall not exceed the rate set forth for each
class of postal articles in the First Schedule.
Sub-section (2) to Section 7 of the Act states "" Unless and until such notification as aforesaid is issued, the rates set forth in the said Schedule
shall be the rates chargeable under this Act.
Sub-section (3) to Section 7 reads as follows:
The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare what packets may be sent by the inland post as book, pattern and
sample packets within the meaning of this Act.
The First Schedule to the Act prescribes the rates for Letters, Letter-cards, Post-cards, Book, Pattern and sample packets, Registered
newspapers and Parcels.
In exercise of the power conferred under the Act, the Government of India has issued the Indian Post Office Rules, 1933 wherein the rates of
postage chargeable on postal articles where the postage is prepaid, have been provided for.
Rule 30 of the Indian Post Office Rule, 1933 deals with newspapers, which inter alia states that a newspaper as defined in Section 9 of the Act
and complying with the conditions specified shall be transmitted by post as registered newspaper from the place of publication thereof and may
also be so transmitted from any other place with the permission in writing of the Postmaster-General or Office exercising the powers of the
Postmaster-General of the Postal Circle in which such other place is situated.
The Note appended to the above provision, which is under challenge in this writ petition is to the following effect:
Note - Any newspaper in which a document of the following descriptions is enclosed as a supplement shall be treated as a book packet:
(i) an advertisement sheet printed for an advertiser and sent to the publisher of newspaper for distribution with it;
(ii) an advertisement sheet with an order form attached a prospectus with an application from attached or a proposal or enquiry form;
(iii) any document drawn up in the form of a direct personal communication to the recipient such as a printed circular in the form of a letter
purporting to be addressed to a person by whom the newspaper in which it is enclosed is received.
It is contended that the aforesaid note appended to the Sub-rule (1) of the Rule 30 is repugnant to Section 7 and 9 of the Act. According to the
learned Counsel for the petitioner, a newspaper registered u/s 9 of the Act is sought to be treated as a book packet and charged with more postal
charge as per the impugned note, which is ultravires of the Act.
The learned standing counsel for the respondents would submit that the Rule 30, more particularly, the note appended Sub-rule (1) thereto
does not infringe either Section 7 or Section 9 of the Act.
I have carefully heard the rival submissions.
In order to find out a solution to the issue raised in this case, as to whether the note under challenge is repugnant to Sections 7 & 9 of the Act,
one has to make a cursory comparison of the above provisions, which would clearly establish that there is an infringement as rightly pointed out by
the learned Counsel for the petitioner. In the definition contained in Section 2 of the Act, neither the term ""newspaper"" nor the term "" book packet
has been defined. However, in Section 9 of the Act, it is provided that the Government of India has got power to issue rule for the purposes of
registering a newspaper and for postage stamp. There is no controversy at all that such a rule has been issued by the Government of India and in
accordance with the rule, the petitioner''s publication has been registered as a newspaper. If once, the publication has been registered as
newspaper, then postage should be collected strictly either in accordance with the postage prescribed for a registered newspaper under the First
Schedule or in accordance with the rule to be issued for such a registered newspaper as per Section 7 of the Act. The Act clearly indicates that a
newspaper shall be charged with postage for newspaper, irrespective of the fact whether it is in the book form or in the paper form. But, the note
appended to Rule 30 states that certain descriptions of documents if enclosed as a supplement to a newspaper, the same shall be treated as book
packet. Thus, in my firm view, the above note is contrary to the First Schedule and Section 7 of the Act. So long as the petitioner''s publications
have been registered as newspaper, they are to be treated for the practical purpose of postage stamp, only as newspapers and not as book
packets. If it is the case of the postal authorities that though the petitioner''s publications are newspapers as registered, but they are only books and
they do not satisfy the description of a newspaper as per the Act and the Rules, nothing would prevent the postal authorities to cancel the
registration of all those publications as newspapers and then to collect necessary postage treating them as book packets. Thus, the inconsistency is
so obvious. It is a well-recognised principle of interpretation of statutes that if the rules framed under the statutes are in excess of the provisions of
the statute or in contravention of or inconsistent with such provisions, thus these provisions must be regarded as ultra vires of the statute and cannot
be given effect to. The rule is, therefore, ultra vires Section 7 of the Act and First Schedule to the Act. Thus, the same is liable to be struck down.
In the result, the note appended to Sub-rule (1) to Rule 30 of the Indian Post Office Rules, 1933 is struck down. The writ petition stands
accordingly allowed. No costs.