IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 8TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 17TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 33611 of 2010(B) ---------------------------------- --- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- -- P.N.SUNDAR RAJ, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.P.N.NAMBIAR, 1/848, C.C.COMPOUND, POST EAST HILL, CALICUT-5. BY ADVS. SRI.R.SUDHISH SMT.M.MANJU SRI.K.R.RANJITH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATION, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI-110001. 2. CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL, KERALA CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033. 3. POST MASTER GENERAL, NORTHERN REGION, CALICUT-673011. BY ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN, A.S.G. I THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P (C) No.33611 of 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 8th November, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner claims to be a resident of East Hill, Calicut. He is aggrieved by the proposal for merging the East Hill Post Office with the West Hill Post Office. 2. Ext.P1 is the notice issued by the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices which states that the present building where the East Hill Post Office is located is not suitable for continued occupation that the landlord demanded immediate vacation, that alternate building could not be found out. But Ext.P1 notice offers of building were invited from the general public. 3. Petitioner did not make any offer in response to Ext.P1. On the other hand he made Ext.P2 representation to the first respondent objecting to the proposal in Ext.P1. He was informed by Ext.P3 that the proposal is kept in abeyance. Now this writ petition is filed apprehending that proposal in Ext.P1 is likely to be carried out. 4. Ext. P1, in my view, is self explanatory. In the W.P (C) No.33611 of 2010 2 circumstances pointed out in Ext.P1, if the authorities have decided to merge one Post Office with another for administrative reasons, this Court cannot find fault with such a decision particularly at the instance of the petitioner who did not even offer a building in response to Ext.P1 proposal. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE ma