9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (9) TMI 1038 - HC - Indian LawsGrant of concessional rates to magazines - advertisement in the Reader's Digest issue - HELD THAT - The advertisement in question was by Canara Bank. It was contended in that said case that the petitioner collected the advertisement, printed it, put it at a proper place in the magazine, bound the magazine and distributed the magazine. It was observed that the advertisement had been printed for the advertiser, namely the Canara Bank and then had been sent to the publisher, i.e., Reader's Digest, for distribution. Therefore, Clause I of the note below Clause 132 of the Post Office Guide (Corresponding to Clause 139 referred to hereinbefore) was attracted. As regards the numbering of the pages it was found that they were numbered as 148 c, etc. and therefore if the pages were pulled out, it did not detract from the value of the magazine. However, it was clarified that if the pages had been numbered consecutively it would not infringe note (i). We turn to the impugned advertisement itself. The first page of the advertisement indicates the page number as 55 and at the bottom it is clearly printed Reader's Digest/December 2005 . Although the other pages of the Calendar 2006 are not consecutively numbered, the last page indicates the page number as 82 and again at the bottom carries the words Reader's Digest/December 2005 . This, therefore, conforms to the requirement of the clarification issued by the department on 25/28.06.1999. In the impugned letter dated 21.11.2005 written by the department declining the concessional tariff it is merely stated that the calendar did not conform to the conditions contained in the letter dated 09.10.2001. That letter had stated that advertisement will be numbered in running numerical sequence and will also have the name of the issue, month printed in the prominent position . The specific conditions listed out in this letter have already been extracted in para 3 hereinbefore. This Court does not find any of them having been violated as far as the present case is concerned. Further the need for numbering each page of the advertisement was already dispensed with by the department itself in its clarificatory circular dated 25/28.06.1999. This Court finds that the advertisement in question forms part of the December 2005 issue of Reader's Digest and the pages of the advertisement have been expressly included in the total number of pages of the said issue. The first and last page of the advertisement is in sequence with the overall pagination of the issue. The name of the magazine and issue month is printed in a prominent position both in the first and last page of the magazine. Further to remove any doubts the readers have been informed in page 1 of the issue that the issue includes the Toyota advertisement which is at pages 55 to 82 of the magazine. Accordingly, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. In the considered view of this Court, the impugned advertisement is in conformity with the requirement of the law as explained by the circulars issued by the department itself. Consequently, there is no merit in the appeal. It is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Denial of concessional postal rates for Reader's Digest December 2005 issue containing Toyota advertisement. 2. Denial of concessional postal rates for India Today December 26, 2005 issue containing AMWAY India Enterprises advertisement. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Denial of Concessional Postal Rates for Reader's Digest December 2005 Issue Containing Toyota Advertisement: The appellant, Office of the Chief Post Master General, challenged the judgment allowing the respondents' writ petition against the denial of concessional postal rates for the Reader's Digest December 2005 issue. The denial was based on the argument that the Toyota advertisement booklet was not an integral part of the magazine, as it was separately printed and merely stapled, thus violating conditions in the department's letter dated 09.10.2001. The learned single Judge referenced the case "Competition Success Review v. Union of India," which examined Section 9 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, and Clause 139 of the Post Office Guide, Part-I. The circulars dated 19.05.1999 and 25/28.06.1999 clarified that the concessional rate would be unavailable only if advertisement pages were not accounted for in the overall pagination. The Judge found that the Toyota advertisement was consecutively numbered and indicated as part of the issue, thus setting aside the impugned letters and allowing the writ petition. The appellant argued that the advertisement booklet did not conform to Section 9(3) of the Act and Rule 30 of the Rules, as it could be separated and used independently, and had different paper quality and size. The respondent countered that the advertisement was part of the magazine and complied with the clarifications provided by the department's circulars. The Court examined Section 9 of the Act and Rule 30 of the Rules, which stipulate conditions for registered newspapers and supplements. The clarificatory circular dated 25/28.06.1999 allowed for concessional tariff even if some advertisement pages were not numbered, provided they were accounted for in the overall pagination. The Court found that the Toyota advertisement was prominently indicated as part of the issue on the first page, and the pages were consecutively numbered, complying with the department's requirements. Therefore, the advertisement formed part of the December 2005 issue of Reader's Digest, and the appeal was dismissed. 2. Denial of Concessional Postal Rates for India Today December 26, 2005 Issue Containing AMWAY India Enterprises Advertisement: The appellant challenged the judgment allowing the respondents' writ petition against the denial of concessional postal rates for the India Today December 26, 2005 issue. The denial was based on the argument that the AMWAY advertisement booklet did not adhere to the terms and conditions prescribed for supplements under Section 9(3) of the Act. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition for the same reasons as in the Reader's Digest case. The Court found that the AMWAY advertisement booklet was firmly attached to the magazine, consecutively numbered, and prominently indicated as part of the issue, thus complying with the department's requirements. The Court examined the impugned advertisement booklet and found that it was an integral part of the magazine, as removing it would disrupt the pagination and leave readers wondering about the missing pages. The advertisement conformed to the law as explained by the department's circulars. Therefore, the Court found no merit in the appeal, and it was dismissed.
|
