Cannot Prejudice Sender For Addressee Failing To Update Address: Kerala HC Upholds Liability Of Addressee In Cases Where Notice Served Is Returned Unclaimed

The Kerala High Court recently upheld an order of the State Election Commission which observed that the parties defected and were disqualified for their failure to follow the written instructions issued to them by the party whip. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas relied upon the Apex Court decision in M/s Madan and Co. v. Wazir Jaivir Chand and held thus: “Apart from the above, if the notice sent to the correct address is returned either as unclaimed or as addressee left, the failure to serve the notice can only be attributed to the addressee and not to the sender. Referring to section 26 of the Kerala Interpretation and General Clauses Act 1125, the Court held that the expression 'send' would mean that the petitioners were served with the postal articles containing the whip as there was no change of address made officially. Also, relying upon Rule 3 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Rules 1996, the Court held that sending a registered letter to a person's last known address was sufficient for service of notice. Viewed in the above perspective, it is evident that the respondents were served with the whip.” Accordingly, the Court held that the parties were sent written instructions with a valid and complete whip and upheld the order of the State Election Commission Counsel for the petitioners: Advocate Aswini Sankar R.S., P.Yadhu Kumar Counsel for the respondents: Senior Advocate S.Sreekumar, Standing Counsel Deepu Lal Mohan, Advocates Martin Jose P, P.Prijith, Thomas P.Kuruvilla, R.Githesh, Ajay Ben Jose, Manjunath Menon, Sachin Jacob Ambat, Anna Linda Eden, Harikrishnan S. Citation: 2023 LiveLaw 724 Case title: Praveena Ravikumar v State Election Commission & Connected Case Case number: WP NO.