In Re Section 6a Of The Citizenship Act 1955 vs. Union Of India Ministry Of Home Affairs Secretary
AI Summary
This Supreme Court Registrar's report details the ongoing efforts to serve notices to various state respondents in a Public Interest Litigation concerning Bengali Refugees. It highlights procedural delays, unfiled appearances, and the court's persistent efforts to ensure all parties are notified, emphasizing the crucial initial stages of a significant case that could impact numerous lives.
Case Identifiers
Respondent's Counsel
Advocates on Record
eCourtsIndia AITM
Brief Facts Summary
This is an office report detailing the status of notice service in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 916 of 2014, filed by the Joint Action Committee for Bengali Refugees. On September 20, 2016, the Ld. Registrar's Court directed fresh steps for service on respondent Nos. 8, 19, 29, and 32 (States of Arunachal Pradesh, Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Himachal Pradesh), allowing dasti service. The report confirms notice service is complete for R. Nos. 8, 19, and 32 by usual mode and dasti, but the petitioner's counsel has not filed proof of dasti service. Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, Advocate, has appeared for Karnataka (R. No. 29). The State of Gujarat (R-30), though served, has failed to file a vakalatnama and counter affidavit. The petition is listed for further orders.
Timeline of Events
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 916 of 2014 filed.
Mr. V.N. Raghupathy files Vakalatnama/appearance for State of Karnataka (R. No. 29).
Office Report dated 19.09.2016 issued (mentioned as preceding the 20.09.2016 order).
Ld. Registrar's Court passes an order directing fresh steps for service on R. Nos. 8, 19, 29, 32, and permitting dasti service.
Show Cause Notice issued to R. Nos. 8, 19, 32 by usual mode and dasti.
Date of this Office Report.
Date for which the matter is listed for orders.
Key Factual Findings
Fresh steps for service of notice by usual mode to unserved respondent Nos. 8, 19, 29, 32 were directed.
Source: Recited from Lower Court Judgment
Dasti service was permitted through Ld. Standing counsel for Arunachal Pradesh, Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Himachal Pradesh.
Source: Recited from Lower Court Judgment
Ld. counsel for the State of Gujarat (R-30) asked for a copy of pleadings, but records show service by registered post.
Source: Current Court Finding
Service of notice is complete for Arunachal Pradesh (R. No. 8), Maharashtra (R. No. 19), and Himachal Pradesh (R. No. 32) via usual mode and dasti.
Source: Current Court Finding
Counsel for the petitioner has not filed proof of dasti service for R. Nos. 8, 19, and 32.
Source: Current Court Finding
Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, Advocate, filed Vakalatnama/appearance on behalf of State of Karnataka (R. No. 29) on 15.05.2015.
Source: Current Court Finding
Neither Vakalatnama nor Counter Affidavit has been filed by Counsel for State of Gujarat (R-30) so far.
Source: Current Court Finding
Primary Legal Issues
Secondary Legal Issues
Petitioner's Arguments
The petitioners, through their counsel, are actively pursuing the Writ Petition and attempting to effect service on the unserved respondents, seeking the court's intervention to ensure the case proceeds by completing procedural formalities.
Respondent's Arguments
Some respondents (State of Gujarat) have not filed their appearance or counter affidavit despite being served. Other states (Arunachal Pradesh, Maharashtra, Himachal Pradesh) were previously unserved, and fresh steps for their service were directed. The State of Karnataka has filed its appearance.
Court's Reasoning
The Registrar's Court's reasoning is purely procedural: to ensure all necessary parties are duly served notice and given an opportunity to appear, which is fundamental to natural justice and proper conduct of litigation.
- Strict Adherence to Procedure
- Emphasis on Natural Justice (ensuring service)
Impugned Orders
Specific Directions
- 1.Fresh steps for the service of notice by usual mode to the unserved respondent Nos. 8, 19, 29, 32 shall be taken by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner within a period of three weeks.
- 2.Dasti in addition is permitted to be served through the Ld. Standing counsel representing the State of Arunachal Pradesh, Maharashtra, Karnataka & Himachal Pradesh respectively.
Precedential Assessment
Non-Binding (Procedural)
This is a procedural office report from a Registrar's Court, primarily dealing with administrative aspects of litigation like service of notice and filing of appearance. It does not lay down any substantive legal principle or interpret law.
Tips for Legal Practice
Legal Tags
Disclaimer: eCourtsIndia (ECI) is not a lawyer and this analysis is generated by ECI AI, it might make mistakes. This is not a legal advice. Please consult with a qualified legal professional for matters requiring legal expertise.
Order Issued After Hearing
Purpose:
Case Registered
Listed On:
3 Jul 2009
Original Order Copy
Get a certified copy of this order
Order Text
SECTION PIL (WRIT) MATTER FOR : 26.10.2016 REG. COURT NO. : 02
ITEM NO. : 40
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
BEFORE THE LD. REGISTRAR'S COURT
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 916 OF 2014
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India) WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 1 (Application for Stay) AND
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 2 (Application for deletion of Respondent Nos. 1 & 2)
Joint Action Committee for Bengali Refugees & Anr. ... Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ... Respondents
OFFICE REPORT
The Writ Petition alongwith applications above-mentioned was listed before the Ld. Registrar's Court with connected matter on 20.09.2016 with Office Report dated 19.09.2016, when he was pleased to pass, inter-alia, the following Order:-
"xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
Fresh steps for the service of notice by usual mode to the unserved respondent Nos. 8, 19, 29, 32 shall be taken by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner within a period of three weeks. Dasti in addition is permitted to be served through the Ld. Standing counsel representing the State of Arunachal Pradesh, Maharashtra, Karnataka & Himachal Pradesh respectively.
Ld. counsel for the State of Gujarat (R-30) has asked for copy of pleadings, but as per records, he has been served by registered post which shows that copy must have been received by him, but he has failed to file vakalatnama and counter affidavit.
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx"
It is submitted that pursuant to above Order, Show Cause Notice was issued to the States of Arunachal Pradesh (R. No. 8), Maharashtra (R. No. 19) and Himachal Pradesh (R. No. 32) by usual mode and through their counsel by Dasti on 03.10.2016. Service of notice is complete. However, no Vakalatnama/appearance has been filed by any of the aforesaid respondents, so far.
It is further submitted that a letter alongwith a copy of the Show Cause Notice was issued to the counsel for the petitioner for effecting dasti service upon Respondent Nos. 8, 19 and 32. However, counsel for the petitioner has not filed proof of dasti service in respect of said respondents.
It is further submitted that Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, Advocate has already on 15.05.2015 filed Vakalatnama/appearance on behalf of State of Karnataka (R. No. 29).
It is further submitted that neither Vakalatnama nor Counter Affidavit has been filed by Counsel for State of Gujarat (R-30) so far.
The Writ Petition alongwith Applications above-mentioned is listed before the ld. Registrar's Court with this Office Report for Orders.
Dated this the 25t h day of October, 2016.