JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J. 1. Heard Sri Naveen Sinha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Anurag Khanna, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.K. Upadhyay, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed praying for the following relief : - "(i) to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 26.10.1999 ( filed as Annexure -14 to this petition); (ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus calling for the record of the order dated 26.3.1999 ( filed as Annexure -2 to this petition) and quash the same and confirming deemed closure in place as per UPID Act, 1947 Sec-6W(3); (iii) to issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case ; (iv) to award cost of the petition to the petitioner " 3. Thus, this writ petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 26th October, 1999 and 26th March, 1999 after more than 11 years. The fact of delayed filing of the writ petition as reported by the Stamp Reporter was noted by this Court in the order dated 16th March, 2011. 4. It appears that an order dated 26th March, 1999 was passed by the State Government rejecting the application of the petitioner for prior permission to close down the factory. Against that order which is also impugned in the present writ petition; the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 31237 of 1999 before this Court which was disposed of by this Court by order dated 3rd August, 1999. 5. It is stated by the petitioners that thereafter they filed a review application dated 12th August, 1999 before the State Government. According to the respondents the said review application was rejected by the State Government vide order dated 26th October, 1999. Both the orders i.e. the order dated 26th March, 1999 and the order dated 26th October, 1999 have been challenged in this writ petition after more than 11 years. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners were not aware to the order dated 26th October, 1999 which came to their notice for the first time when a short counter affidavit was served on them on 24th January, 2011 in Writ Petition No. 56728 of 2010. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners were not aware to the order dated 26th October, 1999 which came to their notice for the first time when a short counter affidavit was served on them on 24th January, 2011 in Writ Petition No. 56728 of 2010. He, therefore, submits that since the petitioner were not aware of the order dated 26th October, 1999 and came to know about it for the first time on 24th January, 2011 and thus, there is no latches on the part of the petitioner. To support of his submission he refers to paragraph nos. 41, 42 and 43 of the writ petition and paragraph no. 20 of the counter affidavit. . 7. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the order dated 26th October, 1999 was sent to the petitioner by registered post which was not received back and as such there is presumption of its service upon the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner has not rebutted this presumption. To support of his submission he refers to paragraph 41, 42 and 43 of the writ petition and paragraph no. 17 and 18 of the counter affidavit . Referring to own letter of the petitioner dated 10th January, 2002 ( Annexure No. 5) he submits that in this letter in paragraph no. 1, 3 and 4 the petitioners themselves have admitted that their review application dated 12th August, 1999 was not acceded by the State Government. He submits that the dictionary meaning of the word "acceded" is "accepted". He, therefore, submits that the petitioner admitted the fact that his review application dated 12th August, 1999 was not accepted by the State Government. In other words the said review application was rejected by the State Government vide order dated 26th October, 1999. In support of his submissions, he relied upon a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Parimal Vs. Veena @ Bharti, 2011 (3) SCC 545 paras 13 and 14. He has also produced the relevant record of the State Government to demonstrate that the order dated 26th October, 1999 rejecting the review application of the petitioner was passed and the same was sent to the petitioners by registered post. He submits that the writ petition has been filed belatedly and it is hit by principles of latches, and, therefore, deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. 8. He submits that the writ petition has been filed belatedly and it is hit by principles of latches, and, therefore, deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. 8. I have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the writ petition. 9. Briefly stated the facts of the present case are that an order dated 26th March, 1999 was passed by the State Government rejecting the application of the petitioner for permission to close down the Ghaziabad Factory. Against that order the petitioners filed the Writ Petition No. 31237 of 1999 which was disposed of by order dated 3rd August, 1999 as under :- "In view of the fact that in the writ petition itself it has been contended that the petitioner has already approached the State Government for review of its earlier order rejecting the application of the petitioner for prior permission to close down the factory and the same has not yet been decided and the petitioner may move fresh application, I dispose of the present writ petition finally granting liberty to the petitioner to make a fresh application for review under Section 6-W of the U.P. Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and if such an application is filed, the appropriate authority will decide the same expeditiously." 10. It appears that thereafter the petitioners filed another review application dated 12th August, 1999 before the State Government which was rejected by the State Government by an order dated 26th October, 1999. 11. In paragraphs 1, 3 and 4 of the application dated 10th January, 2002 filed by the petitioner before the respondent no. 2, the petitioner stated that the application dated 12th August, 1999 was not acceded by the Government of U.P. and the Board in its meeting held on 26th November, 2001 resolved to close the factory and to approach the Government of U.P. to reconsider our earlier request for giving permission to close down the factory and keeping in view this fact it is again requested that the company may be permitted to close down its factory at Ghaziabad with immediate effect. In the aforesaid three paragraphs of the application dated 10th January, 2002 the petitioner has specifically referred to his review application dated 12th August, 1999 and then stated that it was not acceded by the Government of U.P. Perusal of paragraph nos. In the aforesaid three paragraphs of the application dated 10th January, 2002 the petitioner has specifically referred to his review application dated 12th August, 1999 and then stated that it was not acceded by the Government of U.P. Perusal of paragraph nos. 3 and 4 of this application shows that the petitioner submitted before the State Government that again a resolution has been passed on 26th November, 2001 by the company to approach the Sate Government to reconsider the earlier request for closure of the factory. 12. In paragraph nos. 41, 42, 43 and 45 of the writ petition the petitioner has stated as under :- "41. That a short counter affidavit was served on the petitioner on 24.1.2011 by which an order dated 26.10.1999 was annexed vide which as per respondents the review application has been rejected. Copy of the short counter affidavit alongwith its enclosure is being annexed herewith and marked as Annexure -13 to this petition. 42. That for the first time on the service of the short counter affidavit the petitioner came to know that the review application has been decided and rejected vide order dated 26.10.1999. Copy of the order impugned dated 26.10.1999 is being annexed herewith and marked as Annexure -14 to this petition. 43. That on service of the order dated 26.10.1999 has ever been done on the petitioner. Its pertinent to mention here that during this period the Management of the Company was not in possession of the factory and accordingly the petitioner is not aware of this order or service thereof and has asked the respondents to provide proof of service which the respondent are unable to do. Further, it is not understood as to why the respondents remained silent about the existence of this order despite several queries and reminders from the petitioner on the fate of it review closure application. it is further not understood as to how suddenly the respondents have come up with an order of rejection when they were pressed into a corner vide this Hon'ble Courts order. Further the Respondents are unable to provide any proof of service of this order on the petitioner. 45. it is further not understood as to how suddenly the respondents have come up with an order of rejection when they were pressed into a corner vide this Hon'ble Courts order. Further the Respondents are unable to provide any proof of service of this order on the petitioner. 45. That after service of the order the petitioner wrote letters on 14.2.2011, 22.2.2011 and 2.3.2011 inquiring from the respondents to give a copy of the order on which the letter dated 26.10.1999 was issued and further to give the copy of the proof of dispatch and also proof of service on the petitioner. Photocopies of all these three letters dated 14-2.2011, 22.2.2011 and 2.3.2011 of the petitioner are being annexed herewith and marked as Annexure -15 to this petition." 13. The aforequoted paragraphs of the writ petition have been replied by the respondent in paragraph no. 17, 18 and 20 of the counter affidavit as under : - "17. That the contents of paragraph no. 41 and 42 of the writ petition are again matters pertaining to record of the case which could be verified from the record itself. However, it is submitted that it is highly improbable that the petitioners kept quiet for 10 long years after the rejection of their review application and suddenly, w.e.f 7.6.2010 they became over-active to get the information on their review application dated 12.8.1999. As submitted earlier, the petitioners had full knowledge with respect to the disposal / rejection of their review application on 26.10.1999 as the same was duly communicated to them through registered post on the address mentioned on their review application. The registered post was not returned back as undelivered and therefore, assumption to the service of the same on the petitioner is established. 18. That the contents of paragraph no. 43 of the writ petition are misconceived and incorrect hence denied. As submitted earlier, the rejection order dated 26.10.1999 was sent through registered post on the address mentioned on the letter pad of the company ) Swadeshi Ploytex Limited), through which the review application was filed before the respondent. Therefore, the averment of the petitioner that they were not in possession of the factory and therefore had no knowledge of the order dated 26.10.1999 is not acceptable. 20. That the contents of paragraph no. Therefore, the averment of the petitioner that they were not in possession of the factory and therefore had no knowledge of the order dated 26.10.1999 is not acceptable. 20. That the contents of paragraph no. 45 of the writ petition are matters of record which could be verified from the record itself. It is further submitted that the respondent authorities have tried hard to search for any record with regard to the receiving on the petitioner of the order dated 26.10.1999, but it could not be found as the matter is 12 years old and therefore relevant records are now not available with respondent authorities." 14. The contents of paragraph no. 17, 18 and 20 of the counter affidavit have been replied by the petitioner in paragraph no. 35 and 36 of the rejoinder affidavit as under : - "35. That the contents of paras 16 to 19 of the counter affidavit are denied and in reply the contents of corresponding paras of the writ petition are reiterated. it is further submitted here that as Section 6-W under which the closure is made was held to be ultra vires to the Constitution and in the year 2002 the constitutional validity of Section 6-W was upheld, therefore thereafter the petitioner sent repeated reminders but no reply whatsoever was given by the State Government. 36. That in reply to the contents of para 20 of the counter affidavit it is submitted that in this para the respondents are themselves admitting that there is no receipt with regard to receiving of the petitioner on the order dated 26.10.1999. " 15. From the above quoted pleadings of the parties in the writ petition, counter and rejoinder affidavit, it is clear that the respondents have specifically denied the allegations of the petitioners in paragraph no. 41, 42 and 43 of the writ petition regarding non service of the order dated 26th October, 1999. In paragraph no. 17 and 18 of the counter affidavit the respondents have not only specifically denied the allegation of non service of the order dated 26th October, 1999 but also specifically stated that the said order was sent by registered post and was not returned back as undelivered, and therefore, presumption of service of the same on the petitioner is established. The facts so stated in paragraph nos. The facts so stated in paragraph nos. 17 and 18 of the counter affidavit have not been specifically denied by the petitioner in paragraph no. 35 of the rejoinder affidavit. The petitioner has also not denied the averments of paragraph no. 17 of the counter affidavit that it is improbable that the petitioner shall remain quite for long ten years after rejection of the review application and the petitioner had full knowledge of the order dated 26th October, 1999. Merely vague denial of these two paragraphs of the counter affidavit has been submitted by the petitioner in paragraph no. 35 of the rejoinder affidavit. 16. That contents of paragraph no. 44 of the writ petition has been replied by the respondents in paragraph no. 20 of the counter affidavit stating that the authorities have tried hard to search for any record with regard to receiving on the petitioner of the order dated 26th October, 1999 but it could not be found as the matter is 12 years old. This statement of fact has not been denied by the petitioners in paragraph no. 36 of the rejoinder affidavit. 17. Thus, from the above pleadings and also from the contents of their own application of the petitioner dated 10th January, 2002, it is clear that the order dated 26th October, 1999 rejecting the review application of the petitioners was sent by the State Government to the petitioner by registered post on the address of the petitioner and which was not received back unserved. Thus, there is presumption of service of the order dated 26.10.1999 by registered post on the petitioner which has not been rebutted. 18. It appears that the petitioners took no steps to challenge the review order dated 26th October, 1999 after about ten years. He filed a Writ C No. 56728 of 2010 for mandate to the respondents to decide the review application. Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that this writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh writ petition to challenge the order dated 26th October, 1999. However, this order is not on record. 19. Section 27 of the U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904 which is parameter with Section 27 of General Clauses Act, 1897 reads as under:- "27. However, this order is not on record. 19. Section 27 of the U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904 which is parameter with Section 27 of General Clauses Act, 1897 reads as under:- "27. Meaning of service by post.- Where any [Uttar Pradesh] Act authorities or requires any document to be served by post, whether the expression "serve" or either of the expressions "give" or any other expression is used, then unless a different intention appears, the service shall be deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting by registered post, a letter containing the document and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post." 20. Thus, since copy of the impugned order dated 26th October, 1999 was sent by the respondents to the petitioners by registered post at the correct address and as such presumption would be that the said order was duly served upon the petitioners. The presumption under Section 27 of the Uttar Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1904 is undoubtedly rebuttal presumption. Petitioner has failed to rebut this presumption. From the pleadings made in paragraph no.17 and 18 of the counter affidavit and reply thereof in paragraph no. 35 of the rejoinder affidavit clearly shows that the petitioner has not even specifically denied the facts stated in paragraph no. 17 and 18 of the counter affidavit but merely made vague averments. In the case of Parimal( supra) , Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered Section 27 of the General Clauses Act and held as under : - "13. This Court after considering large number of its earlier judgments in Greater Mohali Area Development Authority & Ors. v. Manju Jain & Ors., AIR 2010 SC 3817 , held that in view of the provisions of Section 114 Illustration (f) of the Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 there is a presumption that the addressee has received the letter sent by registered post. However, the presumption is rebuttable on a consideration of evidence of impeccable character. A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Dr. Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, JT 2010 (12) SC 287. 14. In Gujarat Electricity Board & Anr. However, the presumption is rebuttable on a consideration of evidence of impeccable character. A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Dr. Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, JT 2010 (12) SC 287. 14. In Gujarat Electricity Board & Anr. v. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani, AIR 1989 SC 1433 , this Court held as under: "There is presumption of service of a letter sent under registered cover, if the same is returned back with a postal endorsement that the addressee refused to accept the same. No doubt the presumption is rebuttable and it is open to the party concerned to place evidence before the Court to rebut the presumption by showing that the address mentioned on the cover was incorrect or that the postal authorities never tendered the registered letter to him or that there was no occasion for him to refuse the same. The burden to rebut the presumption lies on the party, challenging the factum of service." 21. Thus, I find no difficulty to hold under the facts and circumstances of the present case that there is presumption of service of the order dated 26th October, 1999 on the petitioners which could not be rebutted by the petitioners. 22. The petitioners could not explain the latches in filing the writ petition after more than eleven years of the impugned orders and as such, writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of latches. 23. In result, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed on the ground of latches. ———————