UNION OF INDIA HYDERABAD Vs. V K SANGHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 26.10.2007 passed in FA No.640 of 2007 by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission of A.P. against the order dated 14.3.2007 in CC No.677 of 2006 on the file of the DCF-I, Hyderabad and to quash the same as illegal, and as an error apparent on the face of the record was committed and also being violative of law, rules and regulations governing the postal articles.

(2.) The facts in brief are that the respondent-complainant is a practising advocate and he sent up a letter by registered post, addressed to "The Assistant Engineer, A.P. State Electricity Board, Mamidipally, Hyderabad 5000 005", which address according to the petitioners' is incomplete and not specific for effecting delivery of the said registered letter. According to the petitioners-department there are 14 Assistant Engineers working at Mamidipally, and that the A.P. State Electricity Board has been split into three Corporations viz., (1) AP GENCO (2) AP TRANSCO and (3) AP DISCOM (Distribution) and that there are 13 Assistant Engineers working at A.P. TRANSCO Office and one AE at APCPDC Ltd. at Mamidipally.

(3.) It is further stated that a registered letter with acknowledgment due must be delivered only to the addressee and here the sender of the registered letter is an advocate and there was no specific address as to which Assistant Engineer he really intended that his communication should be delivered, instead of vaguely writing the address as Assistant Engineer, Mamidipally, Hyderabad 500005, and despite such glaring deficiency on the part of the respondent-complainant, the Postman of the department made continuous efforts for 7 days to deliver the registered letter but in vain as no Assistant Engineer was prepared to accept the registered letter since it was sent by an advocate and also in view of the incomplete address on the cover. Hence, the Postal Department was left with no other alternative but to return the registered letter to the respondent- complainant which was received by him on 11.7.2006 with endorsement of the Postman "no such addressee return to sender".