IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 17TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 26069 of 2008(C) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- CARREER DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL, REGISTERED NO.T.2333/2007.REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN ABDUL SALAM. S/O.SHAHUL HAMEED, A RETIRED UNDER SECRETARY RESIDING AT "JASMINE", VAVARA AMBALAM, POTHENCODE.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.ABDUL SALAM RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. THE POST MASTER GENERAL, POSTAL SOUTH DIVISION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POSTAL OFFICE, POSTAL SOUTH DIVISON, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE POST MASTER, POST OFFICE, MANACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR FOR R1 TO 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.26069/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO.T.2333/2007 OF REGISTRATION ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2: PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMORAUDMOF ASSOCIATION. EXT.P3: PHOTOCOPY OF THE RENT AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY THANKAPPAN RAJENDRAN AND THE PETITIONER-INSTITUTION. EXT.P4(a): PHOTCOPY OF THE PAMPHLET PRINTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4(b): PHOTOCOPY OF THE PAMPHLET PRINTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5: PHOTOCOPY OF THE PETITION DT 21.7.2008 BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: PHOTOCOPYOF THE PETITION DT 7.8.2008 BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: PHOTOCOPY OF THE PETITION DT 12.8.2008 BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXTS. OF RESPONDENTS EXT.R1: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 17.7.2008 WRITTEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 26069 OF 2008 (C) ==================== Dated this the 6th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner claims to be the Chairman of an Organization “Career Development Council”. 2. According to the petitioner, on the strength of Ext.P3 lease deed, his establishment is functioning in the premises mentioned therein. It is stated that initially the petitioner's establishment was in a premises at Enchakkal and that the same has since been shifted to the present premises at Manacaud. Petitioner submits that on shifting to the new premises, that was intimated to the postal authorities as per Exts.P5 to P7 and they were requested to deliver postal articles at the new address. Although intimation has been given with the address and the name of the person authorised to receive the postal articles, complaint is that postal authorities are refusing to deliver them at the address and to the authorised person. 3. Respondents have filed a counter affidavit. According to the respondents, the address shown by the petitioner is that of a fancy store and the person who is stated to have been authorised by the petitioner also was not properly authorised. It is stated that no institute as claimed WPC 26069/08 :2 : by the petitioner is seen in the premises and it was therefore that the articles could not be delivered. 4. Although the counsel for the petitioner reiterates that his establishment is functioning at the address shown in Exts. P5 to P7, still having regard to the fact that on verification, the respondents have found that there is no such establishment in the address shown, I feel the appropriate course available to the petitioner is to apply for a post box of his own. It is directed that in case petitioner makes an application for this, respondents shall pass orders thereon without any delay. It is also directed that in the event the petitioner's representative calls at the concerned office for delivery of postal articles, the respondents shall deliver the articles, on satisfying that the person concerned is duly authorised. 5. Petitioner may produce a copy of this judgment before the 3rd respondent for necessary action in this behalf. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp