In a significant ruling, the Andhra Pradesh High Court, comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Challa Gunaranjan, has dismissed Writ Petition No. 14098 of 2022 filed by Madicharla Lakshmi, holding that an order is deemed communicated once it is dispatched through registered post, irrespective of actual receipt.
Background of the Case
The case originates from an order issued by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (APAT) in OA No. 2337 of 2008, filed by the petitioner. The Tribunal, by its order dated February 9, 2010, had directed the State Government to consider the petitioner’s case under G.O.Ms.No.212, dated April 22, 1994, and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks.
The petitioner filed the present writ petition contending that the order of the Tribunal was never implemented and sought a direction from the High Court to enforce it. The petitioner also claimed that similar orders had been implemented for others through G.O.Ms.No.109 PR&RD (Estt. III) Department, dated July 18, 2019, and the non-implementation in her case was discriminatory.
Legal Issues Involved
Whether the Tribunal’s order was complied with – The petitioner argued that the order was never implemented.
Whether non-communication of an order renders it ineffective – The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Punjab v. Amar Singh Harika (1966 SCC OnLine SC 48), asserting that an order must be communicated to the affected party for it to take effect.
What constitutes ‘communication’ of an order – The respondents argued that the rejection order was sent via registered post and that mere dispatch satisfies the requirement of communication.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner’s Counsel, N. Nagaraja Kapoor, contended that the rejection order dated May 6, 2010, was never communicated to the petitioner, making it legally ineffective. He cited Amar Singh Harika’s case to argue that an uncommunicated dismissal order is void.
The State, represented by the Government Pleader for Services – I, countered that the rejection order had been duly considered and sent via Registered Post with Acknowledgment Due (RPAD). Though the acknowledgment was not returned, the fact that the letter was dispatched constituted sufficient communication under the law.
Court’s Observations and Decision
The court extensively referred to Amar Singh Harika’s case and the subsequent Supreme Court ruling in State of Punjab v. Khemi Ram (1969) 3 SCC 28, which clarified that once an order is dispatched, it is deemed communicated, regardless of actual receipt by the recipient.
In its judgment, the High Court observed:
“The order was not kept with the authority so as to modify or change the same. The act of sending through registered post with acknowledgment due is itself ‘communication.’ The requirement is not of actual receiving.”
The court emphasized that the petitioner had not challenged the rejection order dated May 6, 2010, and had only sought enforcement of the Tribunal’s 2010 order. Since the government had considered the petitioner’s case and rejected it, the Tribunal’s order had already been implemented.
Accordingly, the court held that the writ petition was misconceived and devoid of merit, stating:
“In view of the specific order dated 06.05.2010 filed along with the counter affidavit, we cannot accept the submission that the order of the Tribunal dated 09.02.2010 was not implemented.”
Final Verdict
The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed the Writ Petition No. 14098 of 2022, affirming that communication of an order through registered post is sufficient, and actual receipt by the petitioner is not a prerequisite for its validity.
The court also closed all pending miscellaneous petitions, with no order as to costs.
