if a notice sent to the correct address is returned either as unclaimed or as the addressee has moved away, the addressee alone can be held responsible

Apart from the above, if a notice sent to the correct address is returned either as unclaimed or as the addressee has moved away, the addressee alone can be held responsible for the failure to serve the notice, the sender  No.

 Praveena Ravikumar vs. State Election Commission and related case, WP(C) no.  36155 of 2023, WP(C) No.  36144 of 2023

 Kerala High Court

18. In this context, it is essential to refer to Rule 4(2) of the Kerala Local Authorities (Disqualification of Defected Members) Rules, 2000, which states that while sending the direction by registered post, it shall be done along with the acknowledgement due. The purpose of sending an article by registered post along with acknowledgement due is to ensure that the postal article is served on the addressee. The crucial word is ‘send’ which in the context mean served. 19. In section 26 of the Kerala Interpretation and General Clauses Act, 1125, which reads as below: S. 26. “Where any Act authorizes or requires any document to be served by post, whether the expression “serve” or either of the expressions “give” or “send” or any other expression is used, then, unless a different intention appears, the service shall be deemed to be effected by properly W.P.(C) Nos.36155 & 36144/2023 -:16:- addressing, pre-paying and posting by registered post or anchal, a letter containing the document, and unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post or anchal.” Applying the principle of section 26 referred to above, the respondents can be deemed to have been served with the postal article containing the whip on 27- 12-2021, especially since there is no proof of any address change officially. 20. Further, under Rule 3(1) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Manner of Service of Notices) Rules 1996, service shall be done by serving or by sending notice to such person or leaving such notice at the last known place of abode, if he cannot be found or even by affixing in conspicuous part of his abode. Thus, when a registered letter is addressed to a person’s last known address, the very sending itself is sufficient, as per the panchayat rules to be deemed to have served notice. 21. Apart from the above, if the notice sent to the correct address is returned either as unclaimed or as addressee left, the failure to serve the notice can only be attributed to the addressee and not to the sender. In such circumstances, the addressee should leave W.P.(C) Nos.36155 & 36144/2023 -:17:- necessary instructions with the postal authorities either to redirect the letter to his new address or authorize a person to receive such postal articles. Failure to provide the new address to the postal authorities cannot prejudice the sender in such circumstances. Reference to the decision in M/s Madan and Co. v. Wazir Jaivir Chand [(1989) 1 SCC 264] is relevant. 22. Refusal of notice and notice returned as unclaimed, both tantamount to service of notice if it was intimated within time especially in the context of the Act. Otherwise, every wily recipient would be able to defeat the process of law by allowing the postal article to be returned as unclaimed. In Harcharan Singh v. Smt.Shivrani and Others [(1981) 2 SCC 535] and in Jagdish Singh v. Natthu Singh [(1992) 1 SCC 647], the Supreme Court had observed that a notice refused to be accepted can be presumed to have been served on him. In the said decisions, the Supreme Court observed that when a notice is sent to the correct address, the obligation of the sender ends with that, and if he does not claim the notice, it shall be deemed that there was valid service of notice. Viewed in the above perspective, it is evident that the respondents were served with the whip