Delhi High Court
Living Media India Limited And ... vs Office Of The Chief Postmater ... on 28 March, 2007
Equivalent citations: 140 (2007) DLT 228
Author: B D Ahmed
Bench: B D Ahmed
JUDGMENT
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.
Page 1299
1. This writ petition is directed against the communication dated 08.11.2005 from the Department of Posts, Office of the Chief Postmaster General, Delhi Circle, New Delhi, whereby the petitioner was informed that the booklet containing the advertisement of Toyota Motor Corporation in the form of a calendar, was neither a supplement nor part and parcel of the publication of the Reader's Digest magazine's December, 2005 issue. On the basis of this communication, the petitioner was informed that the request for mailing of the December 2005 issue of the Reader's Digest on concessional rates cannot be acceded to. This communication was followed by another communication to the same effect on 21.11.2005. The Department of Posts has denied permission to the Reader's Digest in respect of its December, 2005 issue inasmuch as the Toyota multi-page advertisement was not regarded as part and parcel of the magazine (newspaper). The reason given for the denial of concessional rate as mentioned in the letter dated 21.11.2005 are as under:
(i) This booklet containing advertisement of Toyota Motor Corporation in form of calendar has been bound and printed separately and merely stapled to the Reader's Digest.
(ii) 'Toyota Calendar 2006' does not conform to the conditions prescribed in DDG (POandI) Department of Posts letter No. 22.15/2000 PO (Part-II) dated 09.10.2001.
2. Mr Rajiv Nayar, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that this was not the first time that the petitioner brought out a magazine incorporating the multi-page advertisement from Toyota Motor Company. Earlier permission had been sought and was granted by virtue of Page 1300 the letter dated 09.10.2001, which is referred to in the above mentioned letter of 21.11.2005. The conditions mentioned in the letter of 09.10.2001 were as under:
2. Your request for brining out multi-page Toyota advertisement in December, 2001 issue of the Reader's Digest having an extended cover on the first of the magazine has been approved. This will be subject to the following conditions:
(i) The advertisement will be printed and bound along with other advertisement and articles in the magazine.
(ii) The advertisement will be numbered in running numerical sequence and will also have the name of the magazine and issue month printed in a prominent position.
(iii) The extended cover will also be included in the total number of pages so that it will be conformity with the requirement of a registered newspaper.
He submitted that in previous years also the petitioner has been brining out such multi-page advertisements of the Toyota Motor Corporation and no objection has been taken and it is only with regard to the in December 2005 issue that this objection was being taken.
3. The second submission of Mr Rajiv Nayar was that, in any event, this issue is covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Competition Success Review v. Union of India .
4. Mr Chetan Sharma, the learned senior counsel, who appeared on behalf of the Union of India submitted that the concessional rates of tariff could not be provided to the petitioner inasmuch as the multi-page booklet did not form part and parcel of the magazine. His first submission was that the quality of paper was distinct and different from that of the remaining portion of the magazine. His second submission was that the booklet was severable from the magazine without any difficulty. He also submitted that the size of the booklet was slightly different from that of the normal page size of the magazine. Therefore, according to Mr Chetan Sharma, it was not part and parcel of the magazine and it was not bound together.
5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties. In my view, this issue is covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Competition Success Review (supra). In that decision the provisions of Section 9 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 as well as Clause 139 of the Posts Office Guide, Part-I were examined. Apart from these, two circulars dated 19.05.1999 and 25/28.06.1999 issued by the Postal Department with regard to the grant of concessional rates to magazines which include advertisements, was also considered in depth. In the second circular dated 25/28.06.1999, it was mentioned that for determining whether advertisements contained in a magazine or a publication constituted a greater or lesser part of it, it was not necessary that the pages containing advertisements were also to be numbered so long as the pages were accounted for in the overall numbering of pages of the magazine. Considering all these Page 1301 aspects, this Court in Competition Success Review (supra), came to the following conclusion:
21. 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 advertisement and which are not numbered, this, ipso facto, would not disentitle the publication from concessional tariff. What would desentitle 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, as aforesaid, 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, 54B, 106A and 106 B 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 by eligible for concessional tariff.
The sum and substance being that as long as pages are accounted for in the magazine itself, it would be treated as part and parcel of the magazine. In the present case what has happened is that the booklet, which is a multi-page advertisement, which also contains a calendar, is page numbered 55-82. On page 1 of the magazine itself there is a reference to the Toyota Dream Car Art Contest. It is clearly mentioned therein as under:
TOYOTA Dream Car Art Contest
This issue of Reader's Digest carries Toyota's 28- page advertisement, featuring 12 superb drawings from the winners of the 2004 TOYOTA Dream Car Art Contest. The advertisement is also being simultaneously published by a large number of editions of The Digest in Asia and Europe. See pages 55 to 82
6. The first page of the multi-page advertisement is marked as 55 and also prominently indicates that it is part and parcel of Reader's Digest December 2005. The same is the position with the last page of the multi-page advertisement where the page number 82 is given and it is also indicated that it is part and parcel of Reader's Digest December 2005. This, according to me, clearly falls within the ratio of the decision in the case of Competition Success Review (supra). The multi-page advertisement is accounted for and is also numbered. Accordingly, the impugned letters are set aside. The bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner pursuant to interim orders dated 30.11.2005 be returned by the respondent to the petitioner. The writ petition is allowed to the extend indicated above. No costs.
