HABUNG LALIN Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Mr. M. Chanda, learned counsel assisted by Mr. L. Tenzin learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. G. Deka, learned Senior Govt. Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh for the State Respondents No. 1 to 4.

(2.) Office Note reveals that Notice of this case were sent to the private respondents No. 5 & 6 by registered post with AD on 16.12.2014 and the AD card of private respondent No. 5 returned back to the Registry after such service of notice. But neither the un-served notice nor the AD card regarding service of notice on respondents No. 6, have been received back by the Registry. In terms of the order dated 03.12.2014 passed earlier in this case; the petitioner took steps on the private respondents No. 5 & 6 by personal/dasti service routed through the Registry of this Court. By filing an affidavit on 12.05.2015, the petitioner submitted that personal/dasti service of notice of this case has been made on the respondent No. 5 on 20.12.2014, whereas, the respondent No. 6, refused to accept such personal/dasti service of notice from the petitioner.

(3.) As such, it can be presumed that private respondents No. 5 & 6 are well aware of the present petition and in spite of that they have chosen not to contest the proceeding and therefore, this matter proceeded ex parte against them.