Back
2003 Supreme(Del) 555
High Court Of Delhi
COMPETITION SUCCESS REVIEW - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
C.W. 2404 of 2001
Decided On : 07/07/2003
Navin Chawla, S.N.Gupta
Headnote:Postage - Concessional rates — Newspaper — Revised Bill enhancing rates — Petitioners monthly publication registered under the Press and Registration Act and also with Department of Posts for transmission by Post on concessional rates — Revised Bill alleging irregularity in pagination of the publication — Non-numbering of advertisement pages, but accounted for in overall pagination as a whole as is evident from contents and index — No irregularity in pagination — Petitioner already paid the sum due under concessional tariff — Revised Bill to be quashed — Post Office Act, 1898, Section 9 — Post Office Rules, 1933, Rule 30 — Post Office Guide, Part I, Clauses 139, 142 — Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226.
Held:
In the present case the four pages (54A, 548, 106A and 106B) are accounted for in the overall pagination. They comprise of content provided by the publisher i.e., the calendar. The calendar finds mention in the contents/index page and the page numbers — 54B, 106A — are also specifically indicated. The other two pages — 54A, 106B — are advertisements of different parties on the reverse of the calendar pages.
Note (i) under Clause 139 of the Post Office Guide has to be construed in the context of the so-called "offending." four pages - 54A, 54B, 106A and 106B. Now, page 54A is an advertisement of "Hero-Honda". Pages 54B and 106A constitute the "Miss World 2001 calendar". Page 106B is an advertisement of Indian Airlines. It is nobodys case that any of these pages were printed for "Hero Honda" (54A) or "Indian Airlines" (106B) and sent to the publisher (i.e., the petitioner) for distribution with the issue in question. The calendar (54B and 106A) was that of the petitioner itself. In any event, these pages were part of the issue in question and were not in the nature of "advertisement sheets" printed separately and distributed with the newspaper. Note (i) under Clause 139 does not come into play at all in the facts of the present case.
Moreover, if one were to look at the first circular, it would be apparent that it deals with two situations. First, it deals with the situation where pages containing advertisements are not numbered but, in the pagination of the publication as a whole, they are accounted for. The second situation would be where such pages are neither numbered nor accounted for. It is in the second situation that the circular directs that publications should come under the "unconcessional tariff". In other words, where there are pages in a publication which contain advertisements and which are hot numbered, this, ipso facto, would not disentitle the publication from concessional tariff. What would disentitle such a publication from concessional tariff would be the fact that such pages are not accounted for in the pagination of the publication as a whole. If they are accounted for, then, the publication would be eligible for concessional tariff. In the present case, it is clear that the contents/index page of the issue itself indicates the number of pages as "160+4 Pages" which clearly implies that the 4 pages, i.e., 54-A, 54-B, 106A and 106B have been accounted for in the pagination of the publication as a whole. Furthermore, the calendar (at pages 54B and 106A) itself is mentioned in the contents/index page. Thus, in terms of the first circular dated 19.05.1999 also, the Special January 2001 issue of the publication "Competition Success Review " would clearly be eligible for concessional tariff.
In the second circular issued on 25/28.06.1999 also, this is clearly indicated and re-iterated. It is stated therein that "for determining whether the advertisements contained in a magazine or a publication constitute greater or lesser part of it, it is riot necessary that the pages containing advertisements are also to be numbered so long as these pages are accounted for in the overall numbering of the pages of the magazine". It further provides an example to the effect that a magazine having 76 pages, out of which 25 pages are devoted td advertisements, it is not at all necessary to insist on numbering of such pages so long as these 25 pages are accounted for in 76 pages of the magazine counted consecutively. Thus, pages containing advertisements need not be numbered. The only requirement is that they be accounted for. In the facts of the present case, the 4 pages in question being 54-A, 54-B, 106A and 106B are clearly accounted for in the overall pagination of the said Special January 2002 issue of the publication entitled "Competition Success Review" (English monthly). Notes (i) and (ii) below Clause 139 of the Post Office Guide Part-I are not at all attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case as indicated above. None of the provisions of Section 9 of the Post Office Act, 1898 are infringed.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, revised Bill dated 05.02.2001 is illegal and contrary to the applicable provisions and is hereby quashed. The Bill dated 01.01.2001 in respect of the postal dispatches of the said Special January 2001 issue on 23.12.2000, 26.12.2000 and 27.12.2000 for a total amount of Rs. 14,224.75 has already been paid in full by the petitioner and nothing remains owing and due from the petitioner to the respondents on account of the said dispatches.
( 1 ) RULE. With the consent of the parties the matter is taken up for final disposal. The petitioner publishes, inter alia, the english monthly entitled "competition success Review". This monthly publication is admittedly a "newspaper" in terms of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 and the rules made thereunder. There is also no dispute that the petitioner is registered with the Registrar of Newspapers for India and has been granted Registration No. 10485/64 in respect of its said publication "competition Success Review" under the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867. The petitioner s said publication i. e. Competition Success Review (English monthly) is also registered with the Department of Posts, Office of the Chief Post master General, Delhi Circle, New Delhi for transmission by post on concessional rates. This registration has been renewed from time-to-time and continues to be applicable for the period under consideration. The renewal is done under the provisions of Section 9 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 read with Rule 30 of the indian Post Office Rules, 1933 and Clauses 139 and 142 of the Post Office Guide I.
( 2 ) THIS writ petition relates to the question of grant of concessional rates of postage in respect of the Special January, 2001 issue of the said publication "competition Success Review". The facts in brief are as follows.
( 3 ) THE petitioner states that around 75 lakh copies of the said publication are posted each month to its subscribers. These are packed in packets and postal charges are levied thereon on the base of weight. The special January, 2001 issue was posted from Delhi on three dates (23. 12. 2000, 26. 12. 2000 and 27. 12. 2000 ). For the said postal despatches on the said three dates, abill dated 1. 1. 2001 was raised by the Department of Posts for a total sum of Rs. 14,224. 75. This bill was paid in full by the petitioner by Cheque dated 12. 1. 2001.
( 4 ) THE petitioner thereafter posted the February, 2001 isseu of the said publication. A bill was raised for the February issue on 1. 2. 2001 and the same was also paid by the petitioner. However, on 5. 2. 2001, a revised Bill was sent to the Part petitioner by the Department of Posts in respect of the postal despatches of the special January, 2001 issue on the said three dates (i. e. , 23. 12. 2000, 26. 12. 2000 and 27. 12. 2000 ). The revised bill was for an amount of Rs. 1,01,900. 00 and, after giving credit for the amount already received i. e. , Rs. 14,224. 75, the revised bill indicated the amount to be paid by the petitioner as Rs. 87,675. 24. No reasons for revision of the bill were indicated. It is this revised bill which is sought to be quashed in this writ petition.
( 5 ) IMMEDIATELY on receipt of this Bill, the petitioner sent a letter to the respondent on 15. 2. 2001 requesting the respondent to cancel the revised Bill as it had already fully paid the bill dated 1. 1. 2001 for Rs. 14,224. 75. By a letter dated 27. 2. 2001, the Department of Posts replied to the petitioner that the bill dated 1. 1. 2001 had been raised on the basis of concessional rates but that during the course of checking, some irregularities had come to light. The irregularity complained of was that the pagination of the publication was not in order. On the basis of this allegation, the department of Posts contended that the said Special January, 2001 issue ought to have been despatched at the periodical rates instead of concessional rates. Since this was not done, the revised bill for Rs. 1,01,900. 00 was issued on 5. 2. 2001. By this letter, the Department of Posts requested the petitioner to pay up the deficient amount of rs. 87,675. 25 immediately.
( 6 ) IN response to this letter, the petitioner, by a letter dated 1. 3. 2001 informed the Department of Posts that there were no irregularities and that the pagination was in proper order. It pointed out that the miss World Calendar-2001 which was a part of the publication comprised
