2005 (7) TMI 652 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether all the applicants were duly served and the Registry has rightly reported in the Office reports?

Summary

Issues:
- Recall of order based on alleged non-service of applicants
- Allegations of non-service by the applicants
- Examination of service of notices to the applicants
- Requirement of fresh notice after granting leave

Recall of Order Based on Alleged Non-Service of Applicants:
The applicants filed I.A.Nos.14 to 17 seeking to recall an order dated 5.4.2005, claiming they were not served and should be heard. However, the Court found no merit in their plea. The applicants had been served notices through dasti or registered post, and the Registry had received acknowledgments of service for each applicant. The applicants' assertion of non-service was deemed false based on evidence of service provided by the Assistant Regional Manager of the appellant-U.P. State Road Transport Corporation.

Allegations of Non-Service by the Applicants:
One of the applicants, Digvijay Singh, alleged in an affidavit that none of the applicants were served, contradicting the evidence of service provided by the Assistant Regional Manager. Digvijay Singh's claim was found to be erroneous as he had been served as respondent No.7 in the matter. The Court noted that his signature appeared on the duplicate notice, and the allegations of non-service were baseless.

Examination of Service of Notices to the Applicants:
Upon reviewing the evidence of service, including affidavits and acknowledgment due cards, the Court concluded that all the applicants had indeed been duly served. The Registry's records confirmed the service of notices to the applicants, and there was no valid ground for the applicants' claim of non-service. The Court emphasized the importance of accurate information and rejected the applicants' assertions of non-service.

Requirement of Fresh Notice After Granting Leave:
The applicants contended that fresh notices should have been issued to them after leave was granted. However, the Court cited the Proviso to Rule 11, Order XVI of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966, which states that no further notice is required if the respondent had been served with the notice in the Special Leave Petition. Since the applicants had been served notices during the Special Leave Petition stage and had not contested the proceedings, no additional notices were necessary after the appeals were lodged. Therefore, the Court dismissed the applicants' claims and subsequent applications for ad interim stay.

In conclusion, the Court found the applicants' claims of non-service to be unfounded, upheld the validity of the service of notices, and dismissed the applications seeking to recall the order and grant ad interim stay.