Refuse to take legal notice

published in newspaper

Give out a public notice in the newspaper - And send again by Regd.AD

What if they continue to ignore , after newspaper notice?

Then go to the address and paste it at the doorway where they can Notice.

What do you mean by "not receiving it"? The postal/courier peon must have made some endorsement on the packet containing notice. If the litigant has refused to accept the notice it is good service. The exact remark made by the postal authorities/courier services is very important. 

Further to what Advocate  Deepak Thakkar has said, if the remarks of the delivering postman on the cover is not clear, you can write to the Post Master of the delivering post office asking for the reason for return of the letter under RTI Act. But very often the postman is bribed and he will give the remark that the address does not exist or the addressee is not available at the address. In such a situation resorting to newspaper advertisement is only solution. If the addressee is really absconding then it is a real problem. If he has not still left his employment, you can catch him through his employer.

@ Author

1. According to sound Judicial views, it must be established on record that notice issued by your Adv. was in fact received by him. Now if you say before us that the sendee "refuses to accept the notice" the court may presume service of notice, but in a case where the notice is not served for any other reason, it cannot be said to be deemed service of notice giving rise to a cause of action.

2. Hon'ble SC noticed the position well settled in law that the notice "refused to be accepted by the drawer" can be presumed to have been served on him. In this case the notice is not returned as "unclaimed" but as 'refused'.

Reasoning:

One may pose the question "Will there be any significant difference between the two so far as the presumption of service is concerned?" For the same refer to S. 27 of the General Clauses Act and observe that the principle incorporated therein could profitably be imported in a case where the sender had dispatched the notice by post with the correct address written on it. Then it can be deemed to have been served on the sendee, unless he proves that it was not really served and that he was not responsible for such non-service.

3. S. 27 of the General Clauses Act deals with the presumption of service of a letter sent by post. The dispatcher of a notice has, therefore, a right to insist upon and claim the benefit of such a presumption. But as the presumption is rebuttable one, he has two options before him. One is to concede to the stand of the sendee that as a matter of fact he did not receive the notice, and the other is to contest the sendee's stand and take the risk for proving that he in fact received the notice. It is open to the dispatcher to adopt either of the options. If he opts the former, he can afford to take appropriate steps for the effective service of notice upon the addressee. Such a course appears to be suggested by above Adv. Bharat which to me is sound guidelines.