P.G. Devarajan vs The District Registrar and Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Dharmapuri, The Sale Officer, Office of the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Dharmapuri and The Special Officer, D.D. 9, Uthangakarai Agricultural Producers Co-operative Marketing Society Limited, Uthangakarai, Dharmapuri

K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.—The petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of mandamus to forbear the respondents 1 and 3 from confirming the

sale if any which have taken place pursuant to auction notices in respect of C.E.P.No.1/2000-01 in ARC.No.807/98-99.

2.The petitioner is a dealer in cotton. He had purchased cotton from the fourth respondent. According to him, he has regularly paid the amounts

which are due. Subsequently, the petitioner came to know that his purchase account of the Marketing Society had been wrongly entered in respect

of the credits and therefore, many payments made by him are missing in the debit account. He had requested the concerned authorities to set right

the accounts on submission of necessary proof of payment. While so, according to the petitioner he had received notice from the second

respondent calling upon the petitioner to appear on 15.6.1999 in respect of the aforesaid dispute. He appeared before the second respondent and

produced all documents to prove his claims and that he was not liable to make any payment to the fourth respondent. However, he did not receive

any communication thereafter from the respondents. It was only after the Sale Officer had issued attachment notice for sale of the petitioner''s

immovable properties, he came to know of the award said to have been passed by the second respondent. Therefore, he has come forward with

the present petition as stated above and requested for a copy of the award to be furnished to him, so that he will be able to pursue the appellate

remedy open to him.

3.I have heard both learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3. Learned

Additional Government Pleader states that the award was sent by certificate of posting on 5.10.1999 in terms of Rule 107 of the Tamil Nadu Co-

operative Societies Rules, 1988. Rule 107(7)(c) of the Rules requires the authority to send the copy of the decision, award or order free of cost to

the affected persons ""by personal delivery under the acknowledgement or under certificate of posting."" Therefore, according to learned Additional

Government Pleader, the respondents have discharged their duties in accordance with the Rules. Learned Additional Government Pleader also

produced the files showing the certificate of posting in this context.

I have considered the submissions of both sides. It is true that the aforesaid Rule permits the authorities to send the communication by Certificate

of Posting also or in the alternative by personal delivery under acknowledgement. It is settled proposition of law that a communication sent by

Certificate of Posting would be only an evidence of despatch of the communication. The certificate cannot amount to proof of delivery when the

receipt is disputed by the person aggrieved. When the person aggrieved disputes the delivery of communication, then the burden would shift to the

person who claims to have sent the communication under Certificate of Posting, to prove that the communication had been actually delivered on

the person. The award in question deals with certain valuable rights over the properties and also the right of the parties to file an appeal or revision

as provided under the Act. Such valuable rights over the properties and also resulting in the properties being brought for sale cannot be treated in a

light manner. There should be a proper proof of service of the order/award in question. In the present case, there is no acknowledgement of

delivery of the award and the petitioner is also disputing the receipt of the same. The provision in the Rules as stated above have to be read down

and interpreted in such a manner as to protect the interest of the citizen. With the result, I am inclined to hold that in the absence of prior proof of

delivery of the award in question, the petitioner is entitled to be furnished with a copy of the same.

5.Learned Additional Government Pleader also brings to my notice that in terms of Rule 173 of the Rules, the petitioner has to apply for a certified

copy of the award. The petitioner is directed to apply for a certified copy of the award in terms of Rule 173 and the certified copy of the award

shall be furnished to the petitioner by respondents. Till then the respondents are also directed not to take any further proceedings pursuant to the

award.

6.With the above directions, the writ petitions are ordered accordingly. In respect of the sale which is alleged to have been conducted, the

respondents are directed not to confirm the sale till then. No costs. Connected W.P.M.P.No.6061 of 2002 is closed as unnecessary.