Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 6716-6719 of 1999
PETITIONER:
U.P. State Road Transport
Corporation through its Chairman
RESPONDENT:
Omaditya Verma & Ors.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15/07/2005
BENCH:
ASHOK BHAN & A.K. MATHUR
JUDGMENT:
JUDGEMENT
O R D E R
I.A.Nos.14-17 and 18-21
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 6716-6719 OF 1999
A.K. MATHUR, J.
I.A.Nos.14 to 17 have been filed in C.A.Nos.6716-6719 of
1999 with prayer that Order dated 5.4.2005 be recalled as applicants
were not served & they may be heard in the matter. We have heard
learned counsel for parties and we don’t find any merit.
Applicant No.1- Umaditya Verma was respondent No.1 in C.A.
No.6716 of 1999 arising out of S.L.P. ) No.18435 of 1998. Dasti
notice was served on him on May 25, 1999 in S.L.P. ) No.18435
of 1998 and affidavit of dasti service has been sworn in by Shri
H.S.Gaba, the Asst. Regional Manager of the appellant.-U.P.State
Road Transport Corporation and filed in the Registry along with
duplicate copy of the notice which bears his signature. Applicant
No.2- Smt. Santosh was respondent No.5 in C.A.No.6716 of 1999
arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 18435 of 1998. Notice in S.L.P(C)
No.18435 of 1998 was duly served on her by registered post and
acknowledgment due card which was signed by her on March 5,
1999 has been received back in the Registry. Applicant No.3-
Digvijay Singh was respondent No.7 in C.A.No.6716 of 1999 arising
out of S.L.P(C) No.18435 of 1998. He has been served dasti in
S.L.P(C) No.18435 of 1998 on June 1, 1999 and affidavit of dasti
service has been sworn in by Shri H.S.Gaba, the Assistant Regional
Manager of the appellant- U.P. State Road Transport Corporation
and filed in the Registry along with duplicate copy of the notice which
bears his signature. Applicant No.4- Pradeep Singh was respondent
No.10 in C.A.No.6716 of 1999 arising out of S.L.P(C) No.18435 of
1998 and affidavit of dasti service in S.L.P(C) No. 18435 of 1998
has been sworn in by Shri H.S.Gaba, the Assistant Regional
Manager of the appellant- U.P. State Road Transport Corporation
and filed in the Registry along with the duplicate copy of the notice
which bears the signature of applicant No.4. Applicant No.5- Randhir
Singh was respondent No.1 in C.A.No.6717 of 1999 arising out of
S.L.P. (C) No. 18436 of 1998. Notice in S.L.P.(C) No.18436 of 1998
was duly served on him by registered post and acknowledgment due
card which was signed by him on March 5, 1999 has been received
back in the Registry. Applicant No.6- Sanjeev Kumar was respondent
No.9 in C.A.No.6717 of 1999 arising out of S.L.P (C) No.18436 of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
1998. He has been served dasti in S.L.P ) No.18436 of 1998 and
affidavit of dasti service has been sworn in by Shri H.S.Gaba, the
Assistant Regional Manager of the appellant- U.P. State Road
Transport Corporation and filed in the Registry along with the
duplicate copy of the notice which bears the signature of applicant
No.6. The present I.As. i.e. I.A.Nos. 14 -17 have been filed under
Order XIX Rule 4 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966.
These I.As. are supported by an affidavit of one Digvijay Singh.
Digvijay Singh in his affidavit says that he is applicant No.6 whereas
in the I.As. he has been arrayed as applicant No.3. Therefore, this
averment of Digvijay Singh is erroneous. However, he has alleged
that all these applicants were not served. We fail to understand as to
how could he swear the present affidavit on behalf of all the
applicants. So far as applicant No.3- Digvijay Singh is concerned, he
has been duly served as respondent No.7 in S.L.P.(C) No.18435 of
1998 on June 1, 1999 and affidavit of dasti service has been sworn
in by Shri H.S.Gaba, the Assistant Regional Manager of the
appellant- U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and filed in the
Registry along with duplicate copy of the notice which bears his
signature. This was accepted by the Registry and now he has filed
the present I.A. wherein he has averred that he has not been
served. He has alleged that dasti notice was never served on him
nor any acknowledgment was obtained from him. The allegations are
absolutely false. His signature appears on the duplicate copy of the
notice dated June 1, 1999. This was supported by affidavit of dasti
service by Sh. H.S.Gaba, Assistant Regional Manager of the
appellant- Corporation. Similarly, dasti service has been effected on
the applicant No.1- Omaditya Verma on May 26, 1999 and the
duplicate copy of the notice bears his signature. Applicant No.2-
Smt. Santosh was duly served by registered post and
acknowledgment due was signed by her on March 5, 1999. Applicant
No.4- Pradeep Singh was served dasti and the duplicate copy of the
notice which is annexed to the affidavit in support of dasti service
bears signature with date.
So far as applicant No.5- Randhir Singh who was respondent
No.1 in C.A.No.6717 of 1999 arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 18436 of
1998 is concerned, he was duly served by registered post and
acknowledgment due card was signed by him on March 5, 1999.
Applicant No.6- Sanjeev Kumar who was respondent No.9 in
C.A.No.6717 of 1999 arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.18436 of 1998 was
served dasti and duplicate copy of the notice which is annexed to the
affidavit in support of dasti service bears his signature with date.
Thus, on perusal of the affidavit filed in support of dasti service
and the acknowledgment due cards, we are satisfied that all the
applicants were duly served and the Registry has rightly reported in
the Office reports. It was also submitted that after leave was granted,
fresh notice should have been issued to the respondents. This
contention of learned counsel for the applicants is absolutely
misconceived. Proviso to Rule 11 , Order XVI of the Supreme Court
Rules, 1966 clearly provides that if the respondent had been served
with the notice in the Special Leave Petition or had filed caveat or had
taken notice, no further notice is required after the lodging of the
appeal. Notices were served on all the applicants in the Special
Leave Petitions i.e. S.L.P.(C) No.18435 of 1998 so far as applicant
Nos. 1 to 4 are concerned and S.L.P.(C) No.18436 of 1998 so far as
applicant Nos. 5 & 6 are concerned and they did not choose to
appear and contest the proceedings. Therefore, no separate notice
was required to be served on them after lodgment of the appeals.
Hence, we are satisfied that all the applicants were duly served.
Therefore, I.A.Nos.14-17 are misconceived and the same are
dismissed. Consequently, I.A.Nos.18-21 which have been filed for
grant of ad interim stay, fail and the same are dismissed.
No order as to costs.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3