Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/ vs Bidyadhar Tanti And 38 Ors on 22 May, 2024
Page No.# 1/10
GAHC010028742024
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/767/2024
BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED AND ANR
REP. BY CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR, BHARAT SANCHAR
BHAWAN, 20 ASHOKA ROAD, NEW DELHI-01
2: GENERAL MANAGER
ARUNACHAL PRADESH BUSINESS AREA
BSNL SANCHAR BHAWAN
GANDHI MARKET
ITANAGAR-79111
VERSUS
BIDYADHAR TANTI AND 38 ORS
S/O- LATE BHARATI TANTI,
P.O AND P.S- MAHADEVPUR,
DIST- LOHIT , ARUNACHAL PRADESH, PIN-792105
2:RUP MALA
D/O- GANESH BASFAR
P.O- LAL BAZAR
P.S- NAGARANA GHAT
DIST- DEBANA
UTTAR PRADESH
3:NIYA YANGFO
P.O- SEWA
DIST- EAST KAMENG
ARUNACHAL PRADESH
PIN-790102
4:NAGENDRA BARMAN
Page No.# 2/10
S/O- LATE JAYRAM BARMAN.
P.O- CHAMATA
DIST- NALBARI
ASSAM
PIN-781304
5:JADAV SAIKIA
S/O-T .SAIKIA
P.O- DEOTALA
DIST- NORTH LAKHIMPUR
ASSAM
PIN- 787033
6:PROMOD DUWARAH
S/O-BUDHESWAR DOWEARA
P.O- NAPAM BAKAJAN
P.S- GORISAGAR
ASSAM
PIN-785682
7:SANJOY KUMAR RAY
S/O-LT. M RAY
P.O- BIDUPUR
DIST- VAISHALI
BIHAR
PIN- 844503
8:SUNIL KUMAR
S/O-D RAY
P.O- LAKHANI
P.S- BIDUPUR BAZAR
DIST- VAISHALI BIHAR
PIN- 844503
9:SIBA PRASAD MAHANTA
S/O- P.D MAHANTA
R.O- GANAKPUKHURI
DIST-GOLAGHAT
ASSAM
PIN- 785622
10:MATHUR MAHAJAN
S/O- LATE GOURANGA MAHAJAN
R.O- HANGLAR BAZAR
Page No.# 3/10
DIST-KARIMGANJ
ASSAM
PIN- 788806
11:RATAN RABHA
S/O- SUKUR RABHA
R/O- MAZBAT
DIST- DARRANG
ASSAM
PIN-784507
12:DANDI RAM NATH
S/O- LATE H NATH
P.O- CHANJANI
DIST- NALBARI
ASSAM
PIN- 781335
13:JOGEN BORAH
S/O-LATE DULAL BORAH
P.O- CHAMARAJAN
DIST- DHEMAJI
ASSAM
PIN- 787057
14:NIBU TUNGI
S/O-CAIYA TUNGI
P.O- SEWA
DIST- EAST KAMENG
ARUNACHAL PRADESH
PIN- 790102
15:IMDAD ALI
S/O-MD. NIZUMUDDIN ALI
P.O- SILGHAT
DIST-NAGAON
ASSAM
PIN- 782143
16:DHAN BAHADUR TAMANG
S/O- PREM RAJ TAMANG
P.O- SEEPAKHUA
DIST- TINSUKIA
ASSAM
Page No.# 4/10
PIN-786157
17:MOHAN CHANDRA DAS
S/O- J.R DAS
P.O- BALIPARA
DIST- SONITPUR
ASSAM
PIN-784101
18:GOPI CHAND
S/O- G RAJPUT .
P.O- KANPUR
DIST- KANPUR
UP
PIN-208001
19:ANIL KUMAR ROY
S/O- LATE B.N RAI
P.O- CHANDOLI
DIST- SAMASTIPUR
BIHAR
PIN-848115
20:PABITRA BORA
S/O- LATE S BORA
P.O- DEOTALA
DIST- NORTH LAKHIMPUR
ASSAM
PIN-787033
21:MADAN SHARMA
S/O-RUDRA SHARMA
P.O- BALIJURI
DIST- SONITPUR
ASSAM
PIN-784182
22:RAMA GOGOI
S/O- JAGOT GOGOI
P.O- MAHADEVPUR
Page No.# 5/10
DIST- LOHIT
ARUNACHAL PRADESH
PIN-792103
23:GANGPHA WANGSA
S/O- WANGEY WANGSA
P.O- PONGEHAU
DIST- TIRAP
ARUNACHAL PRADESH
PIN-792103
24:ANANTA DEKA
S/O- LATE H DEKA
P.O- TEOGHAT
DIST- SIVASAGAR
ASSAM
PIN-785640
25:SANJAY RAI
S/O- LATE NARSINGH RAI
P.O- PANAPUR LANGA
DIST-VAISHALI BIHAR
PIN-844124
26:KISSAN PRATAP SINGH
S/O- LATE B. SINGH
P.O- LANKA
DIST- NAGAON
ASSAM
PIN-782446
27:BHOJBIR SINGH
S/O- LATE D R SONAR
P.O- MAKUM
DIST-TINSUKIA
ASSAM
PIN-786170
Page No.# 6/10
28:PARWATI D ARYA
S/O- LATE M.R ARYA
P.O- JANTI
DIST- ALMORA
UTTARAKHAND
PIN-263601
29:BIDYUT HAZARIKA
S/O- B HAZARIKA
P.O- BAARDOLINI
DIST- DHEMAJI
ASSAM
PIN-787026
30:LITESWAR SAIKIA
S/O- NILAKANTA SAIKIA
P.O- KUMURAGURI
DIST- MORIGAON
ASSAM
PIN-782105
31:LAKHI PRASAD SHARMA
S/O- H P SHARMA
P.O- PHOLBARIBHKANADI
DIST- NORTH LAKHIMPUR
ASSAM
PIN-787023
32:RABIN NATH
S/O- LATE GOLAP NATH
P.O-CHAKALAGHAT
DIST- NAGAON
ASSAM
PIN-783392
33:TALOKO DARANG
S/O- OYAR DARANG
P.O- ALONG
DIST-WEST SIANG
ARUNACHAL PRADESH
PIN-791001
Page No.# 7/10
34:DIPAK DUTTA
S/O- TARUN DUTTA
P.O- GOBINDAPUR
DIST-NORTH LAKHIMPUR
ASSAM
PIN-787055
35:MAN BALIAN LAL
S/O- SAIKHOLIAN
P.O- TAIRIPOK
DIST- IMPHAL EAST
MANIPUR
PIN-795010
36:BABUL DEORI
S/O- LATE S.R DEORI
P.O- LIKHAK CHAPORI
DIST-NORTH LAKHIMPUR
ASSAM
PIN-787054
37:MAYA RIBA
S/O- CHINO RIBA
P.O- BASAR
DIST- WEST SIANG
ARUNACHAL PRADESH
PIN-791101
38:DAKTO RIBA
S/O- MODAK RIBA
P.O- DARING
DIST- WEST SIANG
ARUNACHAL PRADESH
PIN-791101
39:MIKAR TADA
S/O- GOMI TADA
P.O- NARI
DIST- EAST SIANG
Page No.# 8/10
ARUNACHAL PRADESH
PIN-79110
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D K BAGCHI
Advocate for the Respondent :
BEFORE
JOINT REGISTRAR (JUDL.) MR. CHINMOY BARUAH
ORDER
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 No. 35, the petitioners are directed to obtain instructions regarding proper and complete address of the said respondent.
Moreover, in respect of the rest of the respondents (i.e. respondent Nos. 2, 4, 7, 8, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, 37 & 38), it appears that the respective notices have been received un-served with the postal remarks mentioned below:-
None person:- R2.
Addressee can't be located:- R4 & R38.
Insufficient Address:- R7, R8, R16, R18, R26, R27, R28, R32, R33, & R37. Not meet:- R19.
(No such addressee in this address) Addressee is not found, Returned to sender:- R20, R21, R27 & R29.
In view of the above, the petitioners are directed to obtain instruction regarding the present addresses of the respondent Nos. 2, 4, 7, 8, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, 37 & 38, within 7 (seven) days from the date of this order.
Since, a mention has been allowed for listing of the instant matter on 27.05.2024, the matter is laid before the Hon'ble Court.
Joint Registrar (Judicial) Comparing Assistant