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