Back
2006 Supreme(Raj) 1061
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : RAJESH BALIA,R.P.VYAS
RASHIDA LOHANI - Appellant
Versus
R.P.S.C. - Respondent
CIVIL WRIT PETITION 1955 Of 2006
Decided On : 04/18/2006
P.S.Bhati
The court emphasized the importance of providing sufficient evidence of delivery when claiming submission of an application before the deadline.
Headnote:
Presumption of Delivery - Application Submission - The court found that there was insufficient evidence to show that the application alleged to have been submitted through courier was delivered to the recipient before the deadline. The lack of acknowledgement of receipt and the absence of clear evidence of delivery led the court to dismiss the writ petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner claimed that an application submitted through courier was delivered to the recipient before the deadline, but the court found insufficient evidence to support this claim.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no sufficient material to show that the application was delivered before the deadline, and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues: Insufficient evidence of application delivery before the deadline.
Ratio Decidendi: Lack of acknowledgement of receipt and absence of clear evidence of delivery led to the dismissal of the writ petition.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.
BALIA, J.
( 1 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are satisfied that no sufficient material has been placed on record to show that the application alleged to have been submitted through courier was delivered to R. P. S. C before the expiry of the date of receipt of such application by the R. P. S. C. No acknowledgement of receipt of application by R. P. S. C. Is available on record. Even according to the best evidence placed on record by the petitioner is that courier has put 7 applications in box without taking any acknowledgement from R. P. S. C so much so manger of Maruit Courier does not even state deliverance of application by putting in box. He simply states package was delivered at R. P. S. C. But to whom and in what manner delivery was effected is not stated by him.
( 2 ) WE are unable to draw any presumption of delivery of application to R. P. S. C before dead line set for receiving applications, particularly keeping in view the reply to communication received from petitioner it has specifically stated that application was received by R. P. S. C on 12. 1. 2006 much after the expiry of last date for receipt of such application 9. 1. 2006.
( 3 ) NO ground is made out for entertaining the writ petition, The writ petition is dismissed.
