JUDGEMENT V. M. SAHAI, J. The short question that arises for consideration in these petitions, is where the tender document as per the tender notice is required to be sent by Registered Acknowledgment Due Post in such a case, whether the post office is an agent of the petitioner or the respondents? 2. The facts of the case are that Surat Municipal Corporation (for short, 'the Corporation') issued Tender Notice No. DC (P&D)/TPD/06/2011-2012. Last date of submission of on-line tender was 27-6-2011 and hard copy of the tender was to be submitted by 30-6-2011 by Registered Acknowledgment Due Post/Speed Post. The tender was required to be sent by both modes. On the last date of the tender, the petitioner submitted e-tender within the time. But, hard copy of the tender along with document was sent by the petitioner to the Corporation by Registered Acknowledgment Due Post on 27-6-2011, which was received in the office of the respondent on 2-7-2011. The tender of the petitioner had been rejected as time-barred. 3. We have heard learned Counsel Mr. S. P. Majmudar for the petitioner. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that he has submitted the hard copy of the tender along with the document in the post office on 27-6-2011 to be sent by Registered. A.D. Post and it would be deemed that the tender document has been submitted to the respondent Corporation on 27-6-2011. As in the tender notice, it was mentioned that the tender could be submitted by a Registered Acknowledgment Due Post/ Speed Post, and last date was 30-6-2011 therefore, the post office was the agent of the respondent-Corporation and since the hard copy of the tender was submitted to the agent of the respondent-Corporation on 27-6-2011, it has to be treated within time. 4. The respondents have rejected the tender sent by the petitioner through Registered Post as time-barred as it was received by the respondents after 30-6- 2011, the last date, on 2-7-2011. The relationship between the sender of the registered post and the post office is governed by the Post Office Act, 1898 (for short, 'the Act') and not by the law of Contract or Tort. The relationship between the sender of the registered post and the post office is governed by the Post Office Act, 1898 (for short, 'the Act') and not by the law of Contract or Tort. If the tender was sent by the petitioner by registered post on 27-6-2011 and it was delivered to the addressee, the Corporation, on 2-7-2011, after the last date 30-6-2011, whether for the delay in delivering the registered tender, which was sent by registered post, is on the part of post office, or the petitioner should have sent the tender document by registered post within the reasonable period so as to reach the addressee within time. It is necessary to extract Sec. 6 of the Act which reads as under : "6. Exemption from liability for loss. misdelivery, delay or damages :The Government shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, misdelivery or delay of, or damage to, any postal article in course of transmission by post, except insofar as such liability may in express terms be undertaken by the Central Government as hereinafter provided; and no officer of the post office shall incur any liability by reason of any such loss, misdelivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his wilful act or default." From Sec. 6 of the Act, it is clear that the post office, which is run by the Government, shall not be liable for any delay caused in delivery of postal article sent by the petitioner either by ordinary or registered post. There is no contract between the respondent-Corporation and the post office neither there is any contract between the petitioner and the post office. The post office is not the agent of the petitioner or the respondent-Corporation. Any delay on the part of the postal authority in delivering the tender document sent by registered post to the Corporation has to be considered as delay caused on the part of the petitioner himself. 5. In the instant case, the registered post was delivered in the office of the respondent -Corporation after the last date expired and due to the delay, the tender of the petitioner was rejected as time-barred. It is not the case of the petitioner that the delay was caused in delivering the registered post to the Corporation by the post office fraudulently or by wilful act or default. It is not the case of the petitioner that the delay was caused in delivering the registered post to the Corporation by the post office fraudulently or by wilful act or default. There is no liability on the part of the post office or the Government which runs the post office. The liability of the post office is not contractual, but it is purely statutory. The post office is the department of Central Government and it is not a common carrier. Legislature never intended that there should be contractual relationship between the petitioner who tenders registered post to be sent to the addressee and the postal department or between the addressee and the postal department. Merely because, the respondent Corporation invited hard copy of the tender along with the document by registered post would not make the post office as agent of the Corporation as there was no contract entered between the Corporation and the post office. The post office is also not the agent of the petitioner. 6. The Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Mohd. Nazim, AIR 1980 SC 431 has observed in Para 8 as under : “8. .... These are only some of the provisions of the Act which seem to indicate that the post office is not a common carrier. it is not an agent of the sender of the postal article for reaching it to the addressee. It is really a branch of the public service. providing postal services subject to the provisions of the Indian Post Office Act and the Rules made there under...." 7. The Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Ganga Ram v. Smt. Phulwati, AIR 1970 All. 446 (FB), in Paragraphs 12 and 13 has observed as under : "12. When a registered article or registered letter is handed over to an accepting or receiving post office, it is the official duty of the postal authorities to make delivery of it to the addressee. Human experience shows that except in a few exceptional cases letters or articles received by the post office are duly, regularly and properly taken to the addressee. Consequently, as a proposition it cannot be disputed that when a letter is delivered to an accepting or receiving post office it is reasonably expected that in the normal course it would be delivered to the addressee. Consequently, as a proposition it cannot be disputed that when a letter is delivered to an accepting or receiving post office it is reasonably expected that in the normal course it would be delivered to the addressee. That is the official and the normal function of the post office." 8. The purpose of inviting tender document by Registered A.D. post by the respondent-Corporation was that it should reach safely with the respondents as the postal authorities take special precaution with regard to the registered posts. From Sec. 3 of the Act, it is apparent that a letter or a tender submitted by registered post to an accepting or receiving post office, is expected to reach the addressee in normal course within a reasonable time. Had the petitioner posted the tender within a reasonable time, the same would have been received by the addressee within the time, but the petitioner has sent the same through registered post on 27-6-2011 and in normal course, it reached on 2-7-2011. For the delay, the petitioner has to blame himself. There was no negligence, deiay or wilful default on the part of the postal authorities. Three days' time for delivery of registered post could not be treated to be a reasonable time within which, a registered post is presumed to be served on the addressee. The registered post reached after the last date fixed by the Corporation, it was liable to be rejected as the post office is not the agent of the respondent-Corporation. 9. Learned Counsel 1'01 the petitioner placed reliance on three Judges' decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tata Cellular v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 11 , wherein it has been held that, 'tender could not be rejected on error relating to non-essential matters'. This will not help to the petitioner because the submission of the tender on or before the last date was a mandatory and essential condition and its non-compliance was fatal. There was no question of relaxing the last date either in the case of the petitioner or in the case of some other tenders. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merits in the petitions. The petitions fail and are dismissed. Petitions dismissed.