SUO Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) During the course of adjudication of different matters, this Court noticed that appropriate endorsements are not made on postal articles, which were being returned to the High Court without being duly served. Therefore, an order was issued on 6.12.2018 by the Chief Justice requiring the registration of this public interest litigation as a taken up matter with the intention to have requisite streamlining of matters in relation to service of notice through the institutions called Post Offices falling under the Indian Post Office Act, 1898. The said order reads as follows:

(2.) As the Chief Justice of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, and therefore, the primary guide for judicial administration in the twin Cities of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, I am constrained to make the aforesaid observations in the backdrop of the fact that it is a matter of record of this Court that different postal articles issued by this Court to litigants, who are arrayed as respondents, are returned with "casual endorsements " including that 'the addressee left', 'the addressee has left the village', 'there was no such addressee', 'not a correct address' etc. There are no dependable endorsements in many other cases. This can be easily demonstrated with reference to the fact that even in matters which come upto this Court in the form of transfer petitions and also appeals or revisions from interlocutory orders, the respondents who had generated the litigations in the subordinate Courts are not served with notices and such postal articles and the postal articles even to such litigants are merely returned as if those persons are not traceable by the postal department.

(3.) Such endorsements, to trained judicial minds, are perverted and ridiculous breach of duties by those ordained to deliver postal articles; as duly empowered by the laws. We need to pierce the veil and look ahead because if the public confidence in the postal department is lost, a great element of confidence in the whole system of deliverance of justice will also be shaken by the inordinate delay, to which non-service of notices contributes a lot. Much litigations arise in relation to family matters. Litigation arises also in relation to different other matters; many of them having been generated even from matters pending before the trial Court. Even in cases where notices are sent from the High Court by Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due to addresses of plaintiffs and other parties, who have instituted the matters before the Subordinate Courts, utilizing the addresses shown by such parties themselves in the proceedings of the Courts below, are merely returned with no requisite effort being taken to serve those notices. My judicial wisdom, which is a matter of my head, bleeds alongwith my heart; for the unfortunate litigants, who await service of notice in different such matters. I cannot but observe that this situation needs immediate attention of higher-ups in the postal department. Initially; to achieve it, it is necessary to alert and streamline the officers of the post office and the system as well. Thereafter, if needed, the higher-ups in the postal department hierarchy ought to consider taking appropriate action on unworthy elements in the postal service, who are shown to have proved their credibility to be in breach, by their conduct. Stern action needs to be taken against those who deserve to be shown the door in accordance with law.