U.P. State Road Transport Vs. Omaditya Verma
& Ors [2005] Insc 354 (15 July 2005)
Corporation through its Chairman
Ashok Bhan & A.K. Mathur
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 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.
Back