Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(GAU) 11489
GAHC010020112022 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/857/2022 MOINAL HOQUE S/O- RASHID ALI, R/O- VILLAGE SRIKONA PART-II, P.O- SRIKONA, DIST-
CACHAR, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 14 ORS THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6
2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CACHAR SILCHAR DIST-CACHAR ASSAM
3:THE ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER REVENUE FISHERY BRANCH SILCHAR DIST. CACHAR ASSAM
4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER SADAR REVENUE CIRCLE P.O-SILCHAR DIST. CACHAR ASSAM
5:THE DISTRICT FISHERY DEVELOPMENT OFFICER CACHAR SILCHAR MEEN BHAWAN DIST- CACHAR ASSAM
6:SUBODH DAS PRESIDENT OF BARAK VALLEY KOIBORTA PARISHAD RANGIRKHARI P.O- SILCHAR DIST- CACHAR ASSAM
7:RIPON DAS S/O- RAMKRISHNA DAS R/O- VILLAGE SHYAMPUR P.O- SILCHAR DIST- CACHAR ASSAM
8:KATU DAS S/O-HARIBAL DAS R/O- VILLAGE KAHTAL SHYAMPUR P.O- SILCHAR DIST- CACHAR ASSAM
9:HARICHARAN DAS S/O-HARINARAYAN DAS R/O- VILLAGE KAHTAL SHYAMPUR P.O- SILCHAR DIST- CACHAR ASSAM
10:BIRENDRA DAS S/O-LATE MAHESWAR DAS R/O- VILLAGE RAMPUR P.O- KAHTAL DIST- CACHAR ASSAM
11:HAMENDRA DAS S/O-RAJENDRA DAS R/O- VILLAGE RAMPUR P.O- KAHTAL DIST- CACHAR ASSAM
12:AMRIT LAL DAS S/O-LATE MAHENDRA LAL DAS R/O- VILLAGE RAMPUR P.O- KAHTAL DIST- CACHAR ASSAM
13:KRISHNA DAS S/O-NARAYAN DAS R/O- VILLAGE RAMPUR P.O- KAHTAL DIST- CACHAR ASSAM
14:SURESH DAS S/O-LATE SUREN DAS R/O- VILLAGE RAMPUR P.O- KAHTAL DIST- CACHAR ASSAM
15:KAMESWAR DAS S/O-LATE NIHUM DAS R/O- VILLAGE RAMPUR P.O- KAHTAL DIST- CACHAR ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. JUNM LASKAR Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM BEFORE JOINT REGISTRAR (JUDL.) MR. CHINMOY BARUAH
ORDER
Date : 26.02.2024 Case taken up before the Lawazima Court.
None appears for the petitioner.
Perused the records.
The office note dated 26.02.2024 reveals that notice was issued to the respondent Nos.
6 to 15 by registered post with A/D on 09.03.2022.
The office note further reveals that, as per direction of the Hon’ble Court vide its order dated 18.04.2022, a fresh notice was issued to the respondent No. 10 by registered post with A/D on 07.05.2022. However, it appears that said notice has been received back with the postal remark “Refused, RTS”.
Further, in regard to the earlier notice dated 09.03.2022 issued to the respondent Nos.
6 to 9 & 11 to 15, it appears that the A/D cards in respect of the respondent Nos. 7, 8 & 13 have been received back. However, a perusal of the said A/D cards reveals that the A/D cards bear no signature of the recipient. As such, it can not be said whether the notice has been duly served upon the respondent Nos. 7, 8 & 13 or not.
As for respondent Nos. 12, 14 & 15, it appears that notices have been received back un-
served with the postal remarks “Refused”, “Not Known, RTS” & “Refused RTS” respectively. And, as far as the respondent Nos. 6, 9 & 11 are concerned, neither the A/D cards nor the un-served notices have been received back.
It appears from the above that the notices in respect of the respondent Nos. 10, 12 &
15 have been received back with the postal remark “refused”.
Now, in N. Parameswaran Unni v. G. Kannan, (2017) 5 SCC 737, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “when a notice is sent by registered post and is returned with postal endorsement “refused” or “not available in the house” or “house locked” or “shop closed” or “addressee not in station”, due service has to be presumed.”
In view of the proposition laid down in N. Parameswaran Unni (supra), the registered notices dated 09.03.2022 and 07.05.2022 may be presumed to be served on the respondent Nos. 10, 12 & 15.
As far as the respondent Nos. 6 to 9, 11, 13 & 14 are concerned, the petitioner is directed to take fresh steps by registered post with A/D as well as by usual Court process through the office of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Cachar, within 7 (seven) days.
Let the matter be listed again before the Lawazima Court in the fourth week of March, 2024.
Joint Registrar (Judicial)
Comparing Assistant
