SVLDRS intimation burden: refusal to consider the application was unjustified absent proof of service of Form SVLDRS-3.

Under the SVLDRS online process, mere issuance of Form SVLDRS-3 was insufficient when the respondents produced no material showing that it had been intimated to the petitioner by e-mail or otherwise. The burden rested on the respondents to prove service of the intimation, and the petitioner was not required to prove a negative. Relying on the same principle applied in earlier similar facts, the HC found the refusal to consider the application unjustified. The respondents were directed to reconsider the application, communicate the amount payable under the Scheme, and, on payment, issue the discharge certificate.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondents were justified in refusing to consider the petitioner's SVLDRS application on the premise that Form SVLDRS-3 had been issued and whether the petitioner was entitled to reconsideration of the application and issuance of a discharge certificate after payment of the amount determined under the Scheme.

Analysis: The Scheme was operated through an online mechanism, and receipt of Form SVLDRS-1 was not in dispute. However, the respondents produced no material to show that Form SVLDRS-3 was actually intimated to the petitioner by e-mail or otherwise. In such a system, the burden lay on the respondents to establish that the intimation was made, and the petitioner could not be required to prove a negative. The earlier decision applying the same principle in similar facts supported the petitioner's case. On that basis, the non-consideration of the application was held to be unjustified.

Conclusion: The respondents were directed to consider the petitioner's application, communicate the amount payable under the Scheme, and upon payment, issue the discharge certificate.

---