Madhya Pradesh High Court Criticizes Postal Department for Consignment Tracking Failures

Court Orders Accountability and Timely Dispatch of Notices to Prevent Legal Delays

In a judgment delivered on November 17, 2025, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, under the bench of Justice G. S. Ahluwalia at Gwalior, expressed serious concern over the irregularities observed in the postal department's handling of consignment tracking. This case, titled "State of Madhya Pradesh v. Uttam Singh," highlighted significant procedural failures that have been affecting the timely dispatch of legal notices, causing delays in judicial processes.

During the proceedings, it was revealed that a notice issued to the respondent, Uttam Singh, on October 14, 2025, had neither been served nor returned unserved. Upon investigation, the official website of the postal department showed no booking information for the consignment, raising questions about the reliability of the tracking system.

Justice Ahluwalia noted a recurring issue where consignment numbers are generated by the postal department but fail to appear in the tracking system, leading to confusion and inefficiency. To address this anomaly, Shri Suraj Baghel, Assistant Grade II, was summoned to provide an explanation. Despite claims that the notice was dispatched on November 4, 2025, the consignment tracking report dated November 14, 2025, still showed no record of booking.

Further inquiry led to Shri Arjun Bansal, Sub-Post Master at the Branch High Court Gwalior, who admitted that the consignment had not been dispatched due to unspecified personal difficulties. Justice Ahluwalia expressed shock at the admission, emphasizing that postal authorities cannot retain letters in their office for extended periods without dispatch, as it undermines the efficiency of legal communications.

In response to these irregularities, the court has issued a directive mandating the office to submit detailed reports on the actual dispatch of notices. If consignment details are absent from the postal department's website, the office must confirm whether the notice has been physically sent. Additionally, the court ordered the retrieval of the undelivered notice from the post office and instructed the issuance of a fresh notice with a new date of appearance.

This judgment underscores the critical importance of accountability and prompt service in the postal department to prevent legal delays that could impact the justice delivery system. The matter is scheduled for further listing in the week commencing December 15, 2025.

Bottom Line:

Court observed serious irregularities in postal department's handling of consignment tracking and emphasized the need for accountability and prompt dispatch of notices.

Statutory provision(s): Civil Procedure

State of Madhya Pradesh v. Uttam Singh, (Madhya Pradesh)(Gwalior) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2811661