IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.17963 of 2002 Between: M/s.Karvy Consultants Ltd., Regd.Office at 46 Avenue 4,Street No.1, Banjara Hills,Hyd. Rep.by its Deputy Manager (Legal) Sri M.Umamaheswara Reddy S/o.Late M.Thimma Reddy aged-34,R/o.Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Post Master General Andhra Circle Hyderabad. 2 Senior Superintendent of Post Offices Hyderabad Circle Division Hyderabad. 3 The Post Master Khairtabad Post Office Bulk Mail Centre Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings of the 2nd respondent issued in LI/Fkg/Rlgs dated 21-3-2002 as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondent to grant rebate of 5% as per the letters of the Dept of posts. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.O.MANOHER REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: MR.ANDAPALLI SANJEEV KUMAR The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.17963 of 2002 ORDER: Heard both sides. Petitioner seeks to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing proceedings No.L1/FKg/Rlgs, dated 21- 03-2002 as illegal and arbitrary. It is the case of the petitioner that its company is incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in business of securities registry inter alia acting as registrars to the public issues and transfer agents on behalf of clients companies all over India. The petitioner has to dispatch letters in bulk on behalf of its clients and the cost involved in dispatch of the letters is being reimbursed by the concerned company. The petitioner company used to send letters, share certificates, dividend warrants, refund orders etc., by registered and unregistered post and the petitioner used to use its own franking machine to frank the covers. After franking the covers, the same will be forwarded to the Bulk Mail Centre with area wise, pin code wise segregation. It is stated that the Department of Posts, CI Section, New Delhi, addressed letters to all postal departments in the country informing that a decision has been taken for providing rebate of 5% on bulk mailers of registered letters vide letter No.11-8/85-C, dated 01-11-1985. Pursuant to the said letter, the petitioner was given rebate of 5% on bulk mailers of registered letters. It is stated that having allowed the benefit of rebate of 5%, the 2nd respondent through order, dated 11-02-2000, rejected additional rebate of 2% and, therefore, the petitioner filed W.P.No.2885 of 2000 questioning the said letter, dated 11-02-2000 in withholding a sum of Rs.38,63,684.07 on the ground that as per D.G. Post letter No.63-78/89-C1, dated 03-09-1993, 2% rebate has to be given on registered articles presented in pre-sorted condition in accordance with Department’s requirements by Bulk Mail Centre only. The post office has to pay 3% rebate only on a minimum consumption of Rs.5000/- franks. But, during the course of inspection, it was found that the petitioner was given a rebate of 5% on registered articles posted instead of only 3%. Calculations made revealed that there was an excess payment of Rs.38,63,684-07 in the case of the petitioner during the period from 03-09-1993 till 11-02-2000. Therefore, the petitioner was requested to credit the said excess paid amount in UCR post office. The said writ petition was disposed of through order, dated 31-10- 2001, stating that the petitioner was not given any opportunity before passing the order, dated 11-02-2000, and, as such, the said order is in violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, while setting aside the said order, the respondents were given liberty to issue show-cause notice and pass appropriate orders after hearing the petitioner. Meanwhile, it was directed that the respondents shall continue to pay arrears of admitted rebate within a period of four weeks subject to the right of the petitioner to claim the balance of rebate in accordance with the understanding reached between the parties. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent issued a show-cause notice, dated 28- 11-2001, stating that the petitioner is not entitled for additional rebate of 2%, for which, the petitioner submitted a reply on 10-12-2001. After giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent passed the impugned order, date 21-03-2002 stating that as per the Directorate’s letter No.11-8/85-C1, dated 03-09-1993, Bulk Mail Centres have been created and the procedure for claiming 2% rebate on franked registered bulk mail presented in pre-sorted condition. Bulk Mail Centres have been set up in accordance with the orders contained in the Directorate’s letter, dated 03-09- 1993. Hyderabad Sorting Division, Kachiguda, Hyderabad is the competent authority for payment of additional rebate of 2% on the amount of postage paid for posting of bulk mail at Bulk Mail Centre. But, the petitioner claimed additional rebate contrary to the instructions contained in the Directorate’s letter, dated 03-09-1993. It is stated that as per existing rules of the Department, 3% rebate is admissible for minimum franks of Rs.5000/- and an additional 2% rebate is admissible only in case of franked bulk articles presented in pre-sorted condition. 2% additional rebate was claimed by the petitioner at three post offices viz., Hyderabad G.P.O.; Khairtabad H.P.O. and Banjara Hills post office. It is also stated that the petitioner has not furnished bank guarantee for differential amount of 2% rebate, which was sought to be returned, pursuant to the interim order of this court in W.P.No.2885 of 2000, date 23-02-2000. Questioning the impugned order, this writ petition has been filed. It is not in dispute that as per the Directorate’s letter, dated 03- 09-1993, Bulk Mail Centres have been opened and bulk mailers are entitled for additional 2% rebate from the concerned Bulk Mail Centres alone but the petitioner received additional rebate of 2% from the Hyderabad G.P.O., Khairtabad H.P.O. and Banjara Hills post office instead of obtaining rebate from Bulk Mail Centres. As per the procedure, the bulk mailers have to present the bill for payment of additional rebate of 2% at the Bulk Mail Centres alone but not in other post offices. Insofar as particulars of 2% additional rebate amounting to Rs.38,63,684-07 is concerned, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the respondents and get all the particulars. A perusal of the record goes to show that the quantum was not at all disputed either in the writ petition or in the explanation submitted to the show- cause notice. The contention that the petitioner was not aware of the revised orders issued in the Directorate’s letter, dated 03-09-1993, it is stated that vide publicity was given. But, however, there is no dispute with regard to the existence of the said order, dated 03-09-1993, with regard to creation of Bulk Mail Centres and the procedure for claiming 2% rebate on franked registered bulk mail presented in pre-sorted condition. It is also not in dispute that Hyderabad Sorting Division, Kachiguda, Hyderabad is the competent authority for payment of additional rebate of 2% on the amount of postage paid for posting of bulk mail at Bulk Mail Centre. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the rejection of the claim of the petitioner with regard to additional rebate of 2% as per the revised orders issued in the Directorate’s letter, dated 03-09-1993, cannot be said to be illegal and arbitrary. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for additional rebate of 2% and therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 27-03-2008 Prv ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KKG}