Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Krishna Jetty Vs. the State of Mysore and ors.

Krishna Jetty vs The State of Mysore and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Decided Nov 08, 1971
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/374502

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Karnataka High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Writ Petn. No. 383 of 1971
Subject
Service

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- INTEGRATED CHILD DEVELOPMENT SERVICE PROGRAMME. Integrated Child Development Service Programme (ICDS) : [D.V. Shylendra Kumar,J] Scheme envisaged for providing proper social conditions and atmosphere for the informal development of the personality of the child Expansion of Anganawadi Centres Selection of Angan...

Key legal issue
Service
Acts & sections
Mysore High Court Rules - Rule 5 and 5A; Court-fees Act; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Krishna Jetty

Advocate K.S. Sarya Murthy, Adv.

Respondent

The State of Mysore and ors.

Legal References

Acts
Mysore High Court Rules - Rule 5 and 5A; Court-fees Act; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908
Reported In
AIR1972Kant175; AIR1972Mys175; (1972)1MysLJ40

Excerpt

.....are keen to have their say in the matter of selecting and appointing anganawadi workers and also to retain their control even after the appointment, as anganawadi workers of their choice will obviously remain loyal even after their appointment. on facts, held, the government order dated 15.7.2006 is an order which does not stand scrutiny being totally at variance with the icds programme and guidelines and virtually giving a total go-by to the objectives of the scheme, as if a suitable or proper person is not appointed as an anganawadi worker, who in terms of paras 5.22 to 5.26 of the manual on icds is a key person in the implementation of the project, the scheme can go awry and the very objective of the icds programme is defeated. -- integrated child development service programme (icds) : social welfare measure implementation of the scheme icds programme mooted by the central government order of the government totally at variance with icds programme held, in the present case, it is not the correctness of the reasonableness of the scheme that is in issue before the court, but an arbitrary, illogical, irrational act on the part of the state government acting as the agent of the central government while implementing the icds programme. it is the very implementation of the scheme that is in issue before the court. it is non-adherence to the professed scheme and the guidelines issued for the implementation of the scheme, that has necessitated examination and corrective action. on facts, held, the government order dated 15.7.2006 and further orders/notification pursuant to the same and the placing in position the mla as chairperson of the selection committee and all actions taken by such committees are therefore necessarily to be held as bad in law and are required to be quashed by issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari. when once the government order dated 15.7.2006 is quashed, as a natural consequence, all further actions also fall to the ground and it will..........registered post, what is payable is process fee as prescribed under the rules made by this court under the court-fees act which in the case of an ordinary notice is rs. 1-50 and in the case of emergent service is rs. 2/-. provision is also made in rule 5 of chapter vi pf the high court rules that where service is sought to be effected by registered post, the party in addition to paying the process fee should also produce as many envelopes and postal acknowledgement forms as there are respondents to be served and that the names and addresses of the respondents to be served should be written on the envelopes and acknowledgment forms.4. the result of these rules is that the process fee of rs. 1-50 or rs. 2/- as the case may be, paid for service covers the expenses of postage incurred when the notice is sent by registered post.5. where, however, the service is sought to be effected through the head of the department, the head of the department not being a party to the proceedings, there is no question of collecting process fee or trying to serve on him with the notice of the proceeding. his assistance is sought as is done under the code of civil procedure for service of notice. if the government servant sought to be served is in the same office as the head of the department he is expected to himself cause service and return the duplicate to the court endorsing the completion of the service. if the government servant sought to be served is not work-ins in the same office but elsewhere, it is his duty to find out where the government servant sought to be served is serving at the time and send the notice by registered post to him.6. whether the service by the head of the department on the government servant is personal or by registered post, the appellant or the petitioner, as the case may be, who seeks such service to be made is to pay appropriate amount of process fee together with addressed covers and acknowledgements.7. the postal charges which rule 5-a requires the.....

Full Judgment

Narayana Pai, C.J.

1. This matter is posted for orders as to the correct calculation of process fee and postal charges to be paid in cases where service is sought to be effected on a government servant through the head of his department.

2. Ordinarily service has to be made directly on the Government servant impleaded as the respondent either through personal service like summons in a suit or through pre-paid registered post.

3. Where large number of Government servants are impleaded as respondents and difficulty is felt by the petitioner in tracing their correct address (because government servants are liable for transfer) provision is made under Rule 5-A of Chapter XIII of the Mysore High Court Rules for effecting service on government servants through the head of the department. The said rule reads:--

'5-A. When the service is to be effected on a government servant, the court may, on an application made for the purpose, direct that the notice shall be sent to such government servant through the Head of the Department concerned (to whom such notice may be forwarded by registered post) for service. The party seeking such service shall furnish, along with his application, postal covers containing the correct name and designation of the Government servant and of the head of the department concerned on whom service is to be effected. and also the postage stamp sufficient to cover registration charges'.

If there is no interposition of the head of the department and service is sought to be effected through registered post, what is payable is process fee as prescribed under the Rules made by this court under the Court-fees Act which in the case of an ordinary notice is Rs. 1-50 and in the case of emergent service is Rs. 2/-. Provision is also made in Rule 5 of Chapter VI pf the High Court Rules that where service is sought to be effected by registered post, the party in addition to paying the process fee should also produce as many envelopes and postal acknowledgement forms as there are respondents to be served and that the names and addresses of the respondents to be served should be written on the envelopes and acknowledgment forms.

4. The result of these rules is that the process fee of Rs. 1-50 or Rs. 2/- as the case may be, paid for service covers the expenses of postage incurred when the notice is sent by registered post.

5. Where, however, the service is sought to be effected through the head of the department, the head of the department not being a party to the proceedings, there is no question of collecting process fee or trying to serve on him with the notice of the proceeding. His assistance is sought as is done under the Code of Civil Procedure for service of notice. If the government servant sought to be served is in the same office as the head of the department he is expected to himself cause service and return the duplicate to the court endorsing the completion of the service. If the government servant sought to be served is not work-ins in the same office but elsewhere, it is his duty to find out where the Government servant sought to be served is serving at the time and send the notice by registered post to him.

6. Whether the service by the head of the department on the government servant is personal or by registered post, the appellant or the petitioner, as the case may be, who seeks such service to be made is to pay appropriate amount of process fee together with addressed covers and acknowledgements.

7. The postal charges which Rule 5-A requires the payment of are the charges incurred in sending the notice or notices, as the case may be to the head of the department and will depend upon the weight of the bundle sought to be sent.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial