Judgement Dr.B.P.SARAF, J.:- Writ petitioner, the Communist Party of India (Marxist), is a political party recognised by the Election Commission under S.29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 as an All India Political Party. Sometimes in March, 1993, the petitioner noticed that various postal articles received by it were opened on both ends and tied with a string and that delivery thereof was unduly delayed. The petitioner suspected interception of its mail and made a complaint to the Post Master, Delisle Road Post Office at Delisle Road, Bombay 400013 by letter dated 18-3-1993. In the said letter, the petitioner gave specific instances of delayed delivery of postal articles and complained that the postal articles received by it were found to have been opened on both ends and tied with a string. It was alleged that its mail was being tampered with by the postal authorities. The Post Master concerned was asked to see that no such things happen in future. Having received no reply from the Post Master concerned, the petitioner wrote another letter on 15-4-1993 alleging tampering of its mail. This was also not responded to. The petitioner again wrote a letter to the respondent No.3 on 3-5-1993 wherein specific instances of delayed delivery and tampering of the mail were furnished. The envelopes of such postal articles were also sent to respondent No.3, Post Master for his inspection. He was requested to look into the matter seriously and to ensure that such things do not happen. On the failure of respondent No.3 to respond to any of its complaints, the petitioner filed the present writ petition before this Court on 5th June, 1994 impleading the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay, the Post Master General, General Post Office, Fort, Bombay, the Post Master, Delisle Road Post Office, Bombay, the State of Maharashtra, the Union of India, and Shri T.N. Seshan, Chief Election Commissioner as respondents. Prayer was made in the writ petition for a direction to the respondents to forthwith stop tampering with, intercepting, detaining or in any way interfering with the postal articles sent by the petitioner or to be received by it at its office at Janshakti Hall, Globe Mill Passage Road, Opposite Century Mill, Worii, Bombay or at the offices of its branches all over Maharashtra. 2. 2. Looking at the gravity of the allegations the writ petition was admitted on 6th June, 1994 and a rule was issued which was made returnable on 27th June, 1994. When it came up for final hearing on 7th July 1994, it was noticed that despite returnable rule, none of the respondents have cared to file a reply. In such a situation the hearing was adjourned with specific direction to respondent No.1, the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay to file an affidavit stating categorically whether any instructions were given under S.26 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 ("the Act") or not. The case again came up for hearing on 13th July, 1994. On that day also, to our utear dismay, we found that despite specific direction given, no affidavit was filed as directed nor any reply made to the query of the Court. Under the circumstances, respondent No.1, the Commissioner of Police and respondent No.3, the Post Master, Delisle Road Post Office, Bombay were directed to produce the relevant records before the Court next day. The hearing was adjourned for that purpose to 14th July, 1994. In pursuance of the above direction, affidavits have been filed by respondent No.1 as well as respondent No.3. Respondent No.1, the Commissioner of Police, in his affidavit has stated that there were no instructions "at present" under S.26 of the Act in relation to the petitioners and there was none when the petitioner filed the petition in June, 1994. However, in respect of the period prior to that it is stated that the concerned records would be produced before the Court for perusal at the time of hearing, as according to him, the matter was confidential and sensitive and in the public interest it was not desirable to disclose the material to any person including the petitioner. Affidavit in somewhat similar terms has also been filed by the Sub-Post Master, Delisle Road Post Office, Bombay. 3. The Commissioner of Police has produced the relevant records before us. On careful perusal of the same it appears that though there are no directions in force under S.26 of the Act from June, 1994 onwards, directions for interception of the mail of the petitioner had been issued from time to time under S.26 of the Act. 3. The Commissioner of Police has produced the relevant records before us. On careful perusal of the same it appears that though there are no directions in force under S.26 of the Act from June, 1994 onwards, directions for interception of the mail of the petitioner had been issued from time to time under S.26 of the Act. We do not propose to go into the merits of the orders passed under S.26 of the Act from time to time in the past and to make our observation thereon in view of the categorical, assurance of the learned Advocate General that no orders under S. 26 of the Act in respect of the petitioner and/or any other person would be passed in future except in strict compliance with the requirements of S.26 of the. Act. However, having regard to the drastic nature of the power and the manner in which it has been exercised in the past, we deem it expedient to issue suitable directions in the matter of exercise of power under this section. S.26 reads as follows : 26. Power to intercept postal articles for public good- (1) On the occurrence of any public emergency, or in the interest of the public safety or tranquillity, the Central Government, or a State Government, or any officer specially authorized in this behalf by the Central or the State Government, may by order in writing, direct that any postal article or class or description of postal articles in course of transmission by post shall be intercepted or detained, or shall be disposed of in such manner as the authority issuing the order may direct. (2) If any doubt arises as to the existence of a public emergency, or as to whether any act done under sub-section (1) was in the interest of the public safety or tranquility, a certificate of the Central Government or, as the case may be, of the State Government shall be conclusive proof on the point. On the bare reading of the above section, it is clear that power under this section can be exercised only in the circumstances specified therein viz.(i) on the occurrence of any public emergency, or (ii) in the interest of the public safety or tranquillity. The existence of these circumstances is a condition precedent for exercise of the power by the concerned Government or the officer specially authorised in this behalf. The existence of these circumstances is a condition precedent for exercise of the power by the concerned Government or the officer specially authorised in this behalf. Resort to this drastic power on a ground which is not germane to the action under this section would vitiate the order. The satisfaction in regard to the existence of the conditions precedent must be arrived at rationally on the basis of relevant materials. Before taking any action, the authority concerned should record its reasons for doing so. Though this section does not m explicit terms require recording of reasons by the Central Government or the State Government or the specially authorised officer, such a requirement is implicit in it in view of the nature of the power conferred by it. This will be a minimal safeguard against arbitrary exercise of this drastic power. 4. "Occurrence of any public emergency" or "in the interest of public safety or tranquillity" which is 'a pre-requisite for exercise of power of interception of postal articles under S.26 have not been defined in this Act. These expressions, therefore, have to be construed in the context of the power conferred on the authorities by this section and the object sought to be achieved thereby. Resort can also be had to the doctrine of necittur a socies which says that when two or more words which are susceptible of analogous meaning are coupled together, they are understood to be used in their cognate sense. Under this doctrine, the meaning of questionable or doubtful words may be ascertained by reference to the other words or phrases associated with it. This exercise, however, is not necessary in the present case in view of the fact that identical expression appearing in S.5 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, which empowers the Government to take possession of any telegraph and to order interception of messages "on the occurrence of any public emergency or in the interest of public safety"; have already been construed by the Supreme Court in Hukam Chand v. Union of India AIR 1976 SC 789 . The Supreme Court held (Para 13): ".........The expression 'public emergency' has not been defined in the statute, but contours broadly delineating its scope and features are discernible from the section which has to be read as a whole. In sub-sec. The Supreme Court held (Para 13): ".........The expression 'public emergency' has not been defined in the statute, but contours broadly delineating its scope and features are discernible from the section which has to be read as a whole. In sub-sec. (1) a the phrase 'occurrence of any public emergency' is connected with and is immediately followed by the phrase "or in the interests of the public safety." These two phrases appear to take colour from each other. In the first part of sub-section (2) these two phrases again occur in association with each other, and the context further clarifies, with amplification that a 'public emergency' within the contemplation of this section is one which raises problems concerning the interest of the public safety, the soverignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States or public order or the prevention of incitement to the commission of an offence. It is in the context of these matters that the appropriate authority has to form an opinion with regard to the occurrence of a 'public emergency' with a view to taking further action under this section." The above decision of the Supreme Court will squarely apply to interpretation of Section 26 of the Indian Post Office Act. Similarly, the expression "in the interest of public safety or tranquillity" will take its colour from the expression "occurrence of public emergency". 5. It is on the existence of any of the above conditions precedent that the Central or the State Government or the specified authority can take action under Section 26 of the Act after recording its satisfaction with reasons therefor. If the power under Section 26 is not exercised in the manner set-out above, it will be an illegal exercise of power. As observed by the Supreme Court in Hukam Chand v. Union of India, ( AIR 1976 SC 789 ) (supra), where a power is required to be exercised by a certain authority in a certain way, it should be exercised in that manner or not at all, and all other modes of performance are necessarily forbidden. It is all the more necessary to observe this rule where power is of a drastic nature. In such cases, exercise in a mode other than one provided will be violative of the fundamental principles of natural justice. 6. It is all the more necessary to observe this rule where power is of a drastic nature. In such cases, exercise in a mode other than one provided will be violative of the fundamental principles of natural justice. 6. We, therefore, direct that if power under Section 26 of the Act is sought to be exercised in future, it should be exercised by the concerned authority within the parameters of the said section and after strict compliance with the requirements setout above. 7. Before parting with this case, it may be expedient to observe that the Constitutional validity of Section 26 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 having not been challenged before us in this writ petition, we have not gone into that aspect of the matter. 8. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. 9. No order as to costs. Petition disposed of accordingly.