Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"An important question is whether a noticee can insist that service must be effected upon him/her only at a specified address. It would be recalled that the notice dated 25.3.2008 had been personally taken to C-1/11, Hamayun Road, New Delhi where the Inspector was told to dispatch it to property No.3, Survey No.105, Nehru Road, Cantonment, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh. There is no averment in the petition to the effect that on 29.3.2008 the petitioner was not in Delhi or that she would have gained knowledge of the contents of the notice unless it had been served upon her in Lucknow. In today's day and age reaching even the remotest parts of the globe is possible within 3 day. Even if the petitioner was not in Delhi on 29.3.2008, she could have been informed almost instantaneously of the service of the notice even if she was in Lucknow. It is, therefore, a moot question that the petitioner must be deemed to have been served in New Delhi on 29.3.2008 since those were the premises allotted to her by the Government of India in her status as a Member of Parliament. We do not have to give a definitive answer on this issue since it is the position of the Revenue that that the petitioner must be deemed to have been served in Lucknow on 2.4.2008. According to the Revenue, the notice dated 25.3.2008 was dispatched to C-1/11, Humayun Road, New Delhi- 03 by speed post on 29.3.2008. We have perused the envelope and the postal receipt bears this statement to be correct. The Court cannot but presume that the postman had visited property No.3, survey No.105, Nehru Road, Cantonment, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh and was thereupon redirected to serve the notice at 5, Kalidas Marg, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh. The Postman's endorsements translated from Hindi reads thus:-