Source: Andhra Pradesh High Court 

Why in News?

Recently, the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the matter of The Ancient Pattern Pentecostal Church (TAPPC SOCIETY) v. Kilari Anand Paul has held that there couldn't be a valid "deemed service by refusal" unless the notices were sent to the correct address. 

What was the Background of The Ancient Pattern Pentecostal Church (TAPPC SOCIETY) v. Kilari Anand Paul Case? 

• In the present case, The Ancient Pattern Pentecostal Church (TAPPC Society), represented by its President, Smt. Kilari Esther Rani, as one of the main parties.  
• The original case was filed in the court of the Principal District Judge at Visakhapatnam under Section 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001 (APSC). 
• The petitioners sought several reliefs including: 
  • A detailed enquiry under Section 23 of the Societies Registration Act. 
  • Handover of properties and bank account operations to deserving office bearers. 
  • A declaration that the 1st respondent and associates fraudulently obtained certified copies of renewals. 
  • An injunction to prevent respondents 1-3 from using these certified copies. 
  • Resolution of matters concerning both GUM Society and TAPP Society. 
• In response to this original petition (O.P.), the respondents (who are now review petitioners) argued that the O.P. was barred under Order II Rule 2 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC). 
• The application was successful, and consequently, O.P was dismissed. 
• A key issue arose regarding the service of notices, where there was confusion about the correct address of the parties. 
• Challenging this dismissal order, the respondents filed two Civil Revision Petitions before the Andhra Pradesh High Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations ? 

• The Andhra Pradesh High Court made the following observations: 
  • That the address mentioned in the Civil Revision Petitions (CRPs) was different from the address given in the original petition. The address in the CRPs was incorrect. 
  • That issues with the registered notices sent to the review petitioners also had some errors as: 
    • Some notices showed the number '3' instead of '9'. 
    • One notice to respondent No.2 had an overwriting changing '3' to '9'. 
    • There was unexplained cutting and overwriting on the notice for respondent No.3. 
    • The Court couldn't determine who made these corrections or when. 
  • That merely correcting postal envelopes wasn't sufficient - the address in the CRPs should have been formally corrected and fresh notices should have been issued with the correct address. 
  • The Court questioned why the original registered letters returned weren't submitted to the court along with the memo date. Only the tracking report was submitted. 
  • The Andhra Pradesh Court determined that there couldn't be a valid "deemed service by refusal" unless the notices were sent to the correct address. 
• The High Court also concluded that the review petitioners were denied their right to be heard in the CRPs due to lack of proper service. 
• The Court Cofound that the order passed by the Court violated principles of natural justice as it was passed without giving the review petitioners an opportunity to be heard. 
• The Court emphasized that proper service of notice is fundamental to ensuring fair judicial process and protecting parties' interests. 
• The Andhra Pradesh High Couer set aside the dismissal order and directed the pleas to be listed under the heading of “admission/hearing” before the appropriate bench. 

What is a Notice? 

About: 

• Notice means information or knowledge of a fact.  
• When a person has knowledge about a fact or under the existing circumstances it can be proved that he must have knowledge about a fact, it is said that he has notice of such fact.   

Contents of Notice: 

• The name, description, and residence of the plaintiff 
• The cause of action 
• The relief sought by the plaintiff

Method for Service of Notice: 

• Personal service 
• Registered post acknowledgement due (RPAD) 
• Speed post 
• Courier service approved by the High Court. 
• Other means of transmission of documents (including fax message or electronic mail service) are provided by the rules made by the High Court. 

Section 80 of CPC: 

• Section 80 of CPC deals with the provisions relating to notice which is a condition precedent before filing a suit against the government or against a public servant. 
• It states that - 
  • As per sub section (1) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2), no suits shall be instituted against the Government or against a public officer in respect of any act purporting to be done by such public officer in his official capacity, until the expiration of two months after notice in writing has been delivered to, or left at the office of— 
    • In the case of a suit against the Central Government, except where it relates to a railways, a Secretary to that Government; 
    • In the case of a suit against the Central Government where it relates to railway, the General Manager of that railway; 
    • In the case of a suit against any other State Government, a Secretary to that Government or the Collector of the district and, in the case of a public officer, delivered to him or left at his office, stating the cause of action, the name, description and place of residence of the plaintiff and the relief which he claims; and the plaint shall contain a statement that such notice has been so delivered or left. 
  • Subsection (2) states that a suit to obtain an urgent or immediate relief against the Government or any public officer in respect of any act purporting to be done by such public officer in his official capacity, may be instituted, with the leave of the Court, without serving any notice as required by sub-section (1); but the Court shall not grant relief in the suit, whether interim or otherwise, except after giving to the Government or public officer, as the case may be, a reasonable opportunity of showing cause in respect of the relief prayed for in the suit. 
  • Provided that the Court shall, if it is satisfied, after hearing the parties, that no urgent or immediate relief needs to be granted in the suit, return the plaint for presentation to it after complying with the requirements of sub-section (1). 
  • As per subsection  (3) No suit instituted against the Government or against a public officer in respect of any act purporting to be done by such public officer in his official capacity shall be dismissed merely by reason of any error or defect in the notice referred to in sub-section (1), if in such notice— 
    • The name, description and the residence of the plaintiff had been so given as to enable the appropriate authority or the public officer to identify the person serving the notice and such notice had been delivered or left at the office of the appropriate authority specified in sub-section (1), and 
    • The cause of action and the relief claimed by the plaintiff had been substantially indicated. 
  • The object of the notice is to give the government or public servant an opportunity to reconsider its or his legal position and to make amendments if so, advised by the legal expert. 
    • In Bihari Chowdhary v. State of Bihar (1984), the Supreme Court held that the object of Section 80 of CPC is the advancement of justice. 
  • This Section applies to all suits whether they are suits for injunctions or suits for declarations and suits for damages. 
    • It does not apply to the writs filed before the High Court or the Supreme Court.