IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2008 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 18920 of 2004(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ A.R. NAGAR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., A.R. NAGAR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, V.K. HARIKUMAR. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE POST MASTER GENERAL KERALA, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPH, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POSTS, OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICE, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE SUB POST MASTER, A.R. NAGAR POST OFFICE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN VARGHESE, SCGSC SRI. PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASG. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 18920 of 2004(B) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: THE INLAND LETTER CARD, WHICH WAS CHARGED A FINE OF RS. 5/-. EXT.P2: INLAND LETTER CARD, PRIVATELY PRINTED BY THE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA. EXT.P3: COMMUNICATION DTD. 18.5.2004 BY THE R2. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R2(a): LETTER DTD. 20.05.2004 ADDRESSED TO THE BRANCH MANAGER, LIC OF INDIA, TIRUR. .......... // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE. S.SIRI JAGAN, J = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No. 18920 OF 2004 = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 27th day of May, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a Co-operative Society, doing banking business. They are aggrieved by the action of the 3rd respondent in insisting on paying a fine of Rs.5/- for privately printed inland letter cards used by the petitioner for issuing communications through post to its customers, on the ground that they do not satisfy the specifications prescribed by the postal department. The petitioner's contention is that as is evident from Ext.P1, which is a specimen of the privately printed inland letter card used by the petitioner, the same conforms to the normal specifications of an inland letter card issued from post offices and therefore there is no occasion to impose fine on the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner would also point out that there is discrimination between different establishments in so far as evidenced by Ext.P2, which is a printed inland letter card normally used by the Life Insurance Corporation. The LIC is also using similar inland letter cards and they are not being fined as is W.P.(C).No. 18920 OF 2004 2 done in the case of the petitioner. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: 1. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs, orders or directions commanding the respondents, not to fine the inland letter cards sent by the petitioner - Bank, if the same confirms the specifications prescribed for the privately printed inland cards. 2. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs, orders or directions commanding the respondents to permit the petitioner to send inland letter cards on affixing stamp at the rate of Rs.2.50/- each, on inland letter cards similar to Ext.P1. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent in which it is stated that the petitioner's inland letter cards do not conform to the specifications stipulated in clause 107 of the Post Office Guide Part I. It is submitted that Ext.P1 is a computer generated print out and the same does not have a flap for closing the letter which is a stipulation to be complied with. They also dispute the contention that LIC is not fined for committing the very same violation. They would rely on Ext.R2 (a), wherein the LIC was cautioned about the liability for taxing their inland letter card for breach of conditions in future. W.P.(C).No. 18920 OF 2004 3 3. I have considered the rival contentions in details. The petitioner has produced Ext.P1, a specimen inland letter card used by the petitioner. A mere perusal of the same shows that it is identical to a normal inland letter card sold by the postal department with negligible difference although the same is in the form of a computer generated printout. In fact I am not satisfied about the contention of the petitioner that the LIC is also using similar inland letter cards. Ext. P2 is the specimen of such card. In fact, it is a common knowledge of which this Court can take judicial notice, that LIC is still using identical inland letter cards for sending intimation regarding the last date for payment of premium to it crores of policy holders. I am also not impressed with the contention of the respondents that because the words 'Registered with A.D' is printed thereon the petitioner's intention is to pass off an ordinary letter as a registered letter. It is common knowledge that unless the registered letter is presented at the post office counter with the required postage, the same would not be delivered as a registered letter. The contention that because the inland letter card used by the petitioner is stapled for closing, the department cannot inspect the contents. A W.P.(C).No. 18920 OF 2004 4 stapled letter is easier to be inspected than a letter closed by a flap with gum. In the above circumstances, I am not satisfied about the stand of respondents in the matter. I do not find anything wrong in the petitioner using inland letter cards like Ext.P1. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed not to fine the inland letter cards like Ext.P1 sent by the bank for communications to others and to permit the petitioner to continue using inland letter cards like Ext.P1 for sending letters to its customers. The writ petition is allowed as above. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE bkn/-