Judgment : The petitioner, who is one of the applicants for appointment as retail outlet dealer of respondent No.1-Indian Oil Corporation Limited (for short ‘the Corporation’) proposed to be located between Hampapuram and Rapthadu junction on NH-7, filed this Writ Petition feeling aggrieved by the action of respondent Nos.1 to 3 in not giving an opportunity of being considered for such appointment. In response to the advertisement issued on behalf of the Corporation, the petitioner has filed her application. Respondent No.4 also is one such applicant. The last date fixed as 25-11-2011 for receiving the applications was extended up to 26-12-2011. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has submitted her application on 23-12-2011, along with necessary documents. On considering the petitioner’s application, the site offered by her was inspected. It is averred by the petitioner that when she was anxiously waiting for the call letter for interview, she has come to know through the information in the website on 26-06-2012 that interviews were already held on 22-06-2012. She also came to know through the website that there were only two applications, which are of her and respondent No.4. The petitioner further averred that her information revealed that as respondent No.4 has not offered any site, she has secured ‘0’ marks out of 35 marks allocated for owning the land. The petitioner pleaded that had she been called for interview, she would have secured 35 marks out of 35 marks for owning the land, apart from getting 12 marks as against 9.90 marks secured by respondent No.4 for holding deposits. Similarly, the petitioner has compared her credentials with that of respondent No.4 and stated that she would have far outweighed respondent No.4 in all respects, if she were called for interview. The petitioner has also pleaded that when she approached the Officials of the Corporation stating that she has not received the call letter, she was asked to appear in the State office of the Corporation on 22-08-2012, and that she accordingly appeared before the Officer, who has given her a questionaire containing five questions. The petitioner has also pleaded that when she approached the Officials of the Corporation stating that she has not received the call letter, she was asked to appear in the State office of the Corporation on 22-08-2012, and that she accordingly appeared before the Officer, who has given her a questionaire containing five questions. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with order, dated 01-11-2012, wherein it is mentioned that the Tirupathi Divisional Office has followed the procedure for sending the interview call letter and ensured that the acknowledgment is received, that the letter is delivered wrongly by the Postal Department to one Smt. G.Hemalatha, and that therefore, the Corporation does not have any role to play on the lapse of the Postal Department. It is also stated that since the petitioner was not interviewed, there is no chance of her getting selected. Separate Counter Affidavits have been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 4. In the counter affidavit of respondent No.1, it is, inter alia stated that the Officer to whom the petitioner’s complaint was entrusted, has informed that the Superintendent of Post Offices, Tirupathi enquired into the matter and replied to the Corporation stating that the article was delivered to one Smt. G.Hemalatha, the tenant of the house to which the letter was addressed, on 04-06-2012. In the reply affidavit of the petitioner, she has categorically stated that she is residing at House No.MIG-303, APHB Colony, Anantapur, that the said house does not have any portions as it is a small house with two bed rooms, and that there is no possibility of letting out a portion of the building to anyone. She has further stated that she is living in the said premises along with her husband and there is no tenant therein as they have not let out any portion of the said building to anyone. The petitioner has thus ruled out the possibility of service of call letter on her purported tenant. From the respective pleadings of the parties, it is evident that even though the call letter for interview is stated to have been correctly addressed, the same was not delivered to the petitioner, but it was stated to have been delivered on one Smt. G.Hemalatha. Therefore, the question that needs to be considered is whether there is deemed service of notice on the petitioner? Mr. Therefore, the question that needs to be considered is whether there is deemed service of notice on the petitioner? Mr. Sharad Sanghi, learned counsel for respondent No.4, submitted that under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (for short ‘the General Clauses Act’), where any Act or Regulation require any document to be served by post, the service is deemed to have been effected if the same is properly addressed by prepaying and posting by registered post, unless the contrary is proved. A close examination of Section 27 of the General Clauses Act would reveal that it contains a presumption as to the service of the registered post, if the same is properly addressed by prepaying the postal charges. However, this presumption is rebuttable and the burden that the document is not served rests on the person, who complains of non-service of the document. In the instant case, the burden of the petitioner stands discharged by the very admission of the Deputy General Manager (RS) of the Corporation in the impugned order, wherein he has categorically found that the letter was delivered wrongly by the Postal Department on one Ms. G.Hemalatha. With this admission, the onus shifts to the Corporation to prove that the said Ms. G.Hemalatha is the authorized person of the petitioner. Even though the Postal Superintendent is stated to have informed the Corporation that the said Ms. G.Hemalatha is a tenant of the house to which the call letter was addressed, the petitioner has categorically denied the house having any tenant. No material is placed by the Corporation to prove that Ms. G.Hemaltha is the tenant of the petitioner. In this context, Section 3 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 (for short ‘the 1898 Act’) and Rule 36 of the Rules and Regulations Relating to the Inland Post issued by the Director-General of Posts (for short ‘the Rules and Regulations’) are noteworthy. Section 3 of the 1898 Act deals with “in course of transmission by post” and “delivery”. In this context, Section 3 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 (for short ‘the 1898 Act’) and Rule 36 of the Rules and Regulations Relating to the Inland Post issued by the Director-General of Posts (for short ‘the Rules and Regulations’) are noteworthy. Section 3 of the 1898 Act deals with “in course of transmission by post” and “delivery”. Clause (c) thereof which is relevant for the present purpose reads as under: “(c) the delivery of a postal article at the house or office of the addressee, or to the addressee or his servant or agent or other person considered to be authorized to receive the article according to the usual manner of delivering postal articles to the addressee, shall be deemed to be delivery to the addressee.” (emphasis supplied) In consonance with the said provision, Rule 36 of the Rules and Regulations has been framed which is as follows: “36. Delivery of registered articles – No registered articles of any kind will be delivered to the addressee unless and until he or his agent authorized in writing has signed a receipt for it, in the prescribed form which will be presented to him for signature by the postman who delivers the registered article.” (emphasis supplied) From the above re-produced provision, it is evident that a registered post can be delivered only to the addressee or his servant or agent or any other person authorized in writing by the addressee to receive the registered post. Neither it is pleaded by the Corporation nor any material in support thereof has been placed before this Court to show that Ms. G.Hemalatha was authorized by the petitioner to receive the registered post. Therefore, even assuming that the said Ms. G.Hemalatha was the tenant of the petitioner, service of the registered post addressed to the petitioner on the said Ms. G.Hemalatha without the petitioner’s authorization in writing in her favour to receive such registered post, is in violation of the procedure prescribed under Section 3 of the 1898 Act and Rule 36 of the Rules and Regulations. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the presumption contained in Section 27 of the General Clauses Act stands rebutted, and the Corporation failed to discharge its burden of proving that the registered letter was served on the petitioner. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the presumption contained in Section 27 of the General Clauses Act stands rebutted, and the Corporation failed to discharge its burden of proving that the registered letter was served on the petitioner. In the light of the above discussion, the conclusion is irresistible, namely, that the call letter for the interview was not served on the petitioner. The petitioner is thus deprived of the valuable opportunity of being considered for appointment as retail outlet dealer. On the above analysis, the writ petition is allowed. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5 are directed to resume the process of selection by holding fresh interviews by sending call letters to the petitioner and respondent No.4 and thereafter finalize the dealership proposals. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, the interlocutory applications, if any pending shall stand disposed of as infructuous.