Short Note : 1. The petition had been filed by the petitioner against an order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, M.P., Gwalior challenging that order on the ground that the appeal was heard by the said Tribunal without notice to the petitioner in whose favour a permit was granted by the Regional Transport Authority constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act, It was contended that without following the procedure prescribed and getting the notice of appeal served on the petitioner the Tribunal passed order dated 4-7-1977 setting aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority to the prejudice of, the petitioner. 2. Held: The order sheet dated 6-4-1977 indicates that service on the petitioner was not effected as the report showed that he had gone out and it was ordered that a fresh notice be issued It is also clear from this order sheet that this is signed by the reader as the presiding officer of the Tribunal was on leave and the case was fixed on 7-4-1977 for orders. The order sheet of 4-7-1977 reads that the arguments of the appellant were heard and decision was passed. It does not show as to whether the present petitioner who was respondent No.2 in the appeal was in fact served or not and this order sheet also does not disclose that the Tribunal considered service of notice, as contended by learned counsel for the respondent, by affixture to be sufficient service. The order sheet dated 4-7-1977, therefore, clearly goes to show that the Tribunal did not notice the fact at all as to whether notice of the. appeal was served on the present petitioner or not. Looking to the rules, rule 4 (5) framed under the M.P. State Transport Appellate Tribunal Appeal and Revision Rule, 1972, clearly goes to show that as there is no specific rule providing for service of summons the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply. Order 5 of the Code provides for service of summons and rule 10 provides for mode of service. This rule provides for personal service by handing over to the person. Rule 17 provides for affixture. Rule 19 provides that the Court shall declare after following the procedure in this rule as to whether the summons has been duly served or not. This rule provides for personal service by handing over to the person. Rule 17 provides for affixture. Rule 19 provides that the Court shall declare after following the procedure in this rule as to whether the summons has been duly served or not. Apparently therefore, affixture could only be accepted as service if the service has been effected as contemplated under rule 17 of the Court, after considering the report and the affidavit of the serving officer is satisfied and declares that the summons has been served, The report of the serving officer which has been filed along with the return only goes to show that when the serving officer went to the house of the petitioner he was not at home and he therefore, affixed it on the house, There is no affidavit of the serving officer and merely because the petitioner was not present it does not justify service by affixture in view of the provisions contained in Order 5, rule 17 of the Code. Petition allowed.