TMI Blog2005 (7) TMI 652X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 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.G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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 not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
