Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. It is further urged by the learned counsel for the respondent/DDA that the petitioners‟ claim of non-receipt of the Demand-cum-Allotment letter is unfounded as the address provided by the petitioner at the time of registration was used for correspondence, and any subsequent change of address was not communicated to the respondent/DDA. It is submitted that the "Wrong Address Policy," outlined in the respondent/DDA‟s circular dated 02.10.2013 is inapplicable in this case due to the petitioner‟s failure to inform the respondent/DDA of their relocation, in W.P.(C) 7841/2012. Reliance has been placed on Madan & Co. v. Wazir Jaivir Chand9, where the Supreme Court held that if a letter is sent to the correct address but remains unserved, the fault lies with the addressee, and such communication is deemed to be served. Further, it is submitted that this Court in M/s Sewa International Fashion v. Meenakshi Anand10 reaffirmed that once notices are sent to the correct address via registered post, they are considered duly served even if returned undelivered. Hence, it is asserted on behalf of the respondent/DDA that it fulfilled its obligation by sending notices to the petitioners registered addresses, and any failure to receive the letter was due to the petitioners own negligence.