Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(GAU) 7206
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
MR. CHINMOY BARUAH, J
BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED AND ANR – Appellant
Versus
BIDYADHAR TANTI AND 38 ORS – Respondent
WP(C) / 767 / 2024
MR. D K BAGCHI
Service of notice is valid if properly addressed, even if acknowledged by someone other than the addressee, creating a presumption of delivery.
Headnote:(A) Service of Notice - Proper service of notice is essential for the court's jurisdiction over parties - The court held that service is presumed valid when properly addressed, even if acknowledged by someone other than the addressee, as established in Harihar Banerji v. Ramsashi Roy, 1918 SCC OnLine PC 58. (Paras 5, 6)
(B) Legal Presumption - The acknowledgment of service creates a strong presumption of delivery, which can only be rebutted by clear evidence to the contrary. (Paras 5, 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought to establish service of notice to multiple respondents, with various responses received regarding the delivery status of the notices sent. A/D cards indicated successful delivery to some, while others required further steps for service.
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that service was completed for several respondents based on the postal track reports, while directing further action for others where service was not achieved.
Issues: The main issues included the validity of service of notice and whether the acknowledgment by others constituted valid service.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that service of notice is valid if it is properly addressed and acknowledged, irrespective of who signed the acknowledgment, reaffirming the principle established in precedent.
Result: The petitioners were directed to take further steps for service of notice to certain respondents.
Date : 22.05.2024 Case taken up before the Lawazima Court.
Learned counsel Mr. D.K. Bagchi appears on behalf of the petitioners. Perused the records.
On a perusal of the office note dated 20.05.2024 reveals that notice was issued to the respondent Nos. 1 to 39 by registered post with A/D on 13.03.2024. Now, in regard to the aforesaid respondents, it appears that the A/D cards of respondent Nos. 5, 6, 11, 22, 23 & 30 have been received back. Upon perusal of the said A/D cards, it appears that the A/D cards of respondent No. 11 bears full signature of the respondent and the A/D card of respondent No. 30 bears purported signature of the respondent. As such, it may be said that service upon the respondent Nos. 11 & 30 has been completed. Next, in respect of the respondent No. 22 & 23, it appears that the A/D cards bear no signature of the respondents. But, on a perusal of the postal track consignment report available with the case record reveals that the notice in respect of the respondent No. 22 has been delivered to the addressee on 22.03.2024. As such, it may be said that service upon the respondent No. 22 has been completed. As far as the respondent No. 23 is concerned, the petitioners are directed to take fresh steps for service of notice upon the respondent No. 23 by registered post with A/D as well as by usual Court process through the office of the Hon’ble Registrar, Gauhati High Court, Itanagar Permanent Bench, within 7 (seven) days, considering the fact that the A/D card has been received without any signature of the recipient.
Page No.# 9/10 Further, in regard to the respondent Nos. 5 & 6, it appears that the A/D cards have been signed by people, namely, signature of “Bitupon Saikia” & “Mintu Duwarah”
respectively on behalf of the said respondents. In this context, the Hon’ble Privy Council in the case of Harihar Banerji v. Ramsashi Roy , 1918 SCC OnLine PC 58 held that where a notice was sent by registered post properly addressed there is a strong presumption that the notice was properly delivered in the usual course and this is not rebutted by the fact that the acknowledgment is signed by a person other than the addressee. In the present case, it appears from the A/D card and the office copy of the registered notice that the registered notice was properly addressed to the respondent Nos. 5 & 6. Thus, in the present case, even though the A/D cards were signed by people other than the addressees, the notice will be presumed to be served on the said respondents (respondent Nos. 5 & 6).
Furthermore, in respect of the notice issued to the respondent Nos. 1, 3, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 24, 25, 31, 34, 35, 36 & 39, it appears that neither the A/D cards nor the un- served notices have been received back. But, on a perusal of the postal track consignment report available with the case record reveals the following:–
R1, R24, R25, R31:– Notice has been delivered to the addressees on 22.03.2024. R3, R14:– Notice has been delivered to the addressees on 03.04.2024. R9, R13, R15:– Notice has been delivered to the addressees on 19.03.2024. R10:– Notice has been delivered to the addressee on 18.03.2024. R12, R36:– Notice has been delivered to the addressees on 21.03.2024. R17:– Notice has been delivered to the addressee on 20.03.2024. R39:– Notice has been delivered to the addressee on 23.03.2024. R34:– Shows the status as Item Bagged by Dhakukhana S.O. as on 20.03.2024. R35:– Notice has been returned by the Imphal H.O. on 11.05.2024 stating that the address of the said respondent is insufficient. However, it may be mentioned that the un-served notice regarding respondent No. 35 has not been received by the concerned section as of yet.
In view observations made above from the postal track consignment reports, it may be Page No.# 10/10 said that service upon the respondent Nos. 1, 3, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 24, 25, 31, 36 & 39 has been completed. Next, in respect of the respondent No. 34, service is awaited. And, as for respondent
