Shaji K. v. The Chief Post Master General

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2015/11TH CHAITHRA, 1937 WP(C).No. 10677 of 2015 (H) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S):

-------------------------- SHAJI. K., VARIYATH VEEDU, MANGARAS ROAD, MANGARA. P.O., PALAKKAD.

BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SARIN.

RESPONDENT(S):

----------------------------

1. THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL, KERALA CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 033.

2. THE DISTRICT POSTAL SUPERINTEND, PALAKKAD DISTRICT- 678 613.

3. MARISHA, POSTMAN, MANGARA POST OFFICE , MANGARA P.O., PALAKKAD -678 613.

R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSIST. S.G. OF INDIA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-04-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

rs.

WP(C).No. 10677 of 2015 (H) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.P1.

THE TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER ON 12.03.2015 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXT.P2.

THE TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER ON 17.03.2015 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

-------------------------------------------- W.P(C). No. 10677 of 2015 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of April, 2015

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers:

"i.

Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or such other writ, direction or orders commanding the 1st respondent to consider and dispose Exhibit P2 within time limit framed by this Honble court.

ii.

Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or such other writ, direction or orders commanding the 2nd respondent to consider and dispose Exhibit P1 within time limit framed by this Honble court.

iii.

Issue any such other Writ, Direction or Orders, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice."

2.

The grievance of the petitioner is that, the postal articles sent in the registered address to the petitioner have not been property delivered by the concerned Postman, who virtually threatened the petitioner, when he went to the Post Office for collecting the same for some vested reasons. This made the petitioner to file complaint both before the 1st respondent as well as the 2nd respondent. The lapse on the part of the concerned

WP(c). No.10677 of 2015 respondents and the delay involved, made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing the writ petition. 3.

Heard the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents 1 & 2 as well.

4.

Considering the nature of grievance projected, this Court does not find it necessary to issue notice to the 3rd respondent or to deal with the merits of the case. The 2nd respondent/District Postal Superintend is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P1, in accordance with law, with notice to the 3rd respondent. It shall be done, at the earliest, at any rate, within 'three months' from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the 2nd respondent for further steps.

Sd/- P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

Pn