JUDGMENT : (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI) 1. We have heard Mr. B.S. Patel learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Harshit Shukla learned AGP for respondents no. 1 and 3. No one appears for respondent no. 2. 2. The following two questions have been referred for the decision by a Division Bench/Larger Bench by the learned Single Judge, which reads as under: 1. Whether the Registrar has power to permit the petitioner/appellant/ applicant to effect direct service on the respondent/ opponent; and 2. When a petitioner/appellant/ applicant has been permitted to effect direct service, can the service be effected by the clerk of the advocate. 3. The learned Single Judge on 11-20/01/2001 has passed the following order, which reads as under: “Registry is directed to register this Reference as a separate Misc. Application and to place it before the Larger Bench. Notice to the respondents in the above writ petition was directed to be issued on 20th October, 2000 and was ordered to be made returnable on 20th November, 2000. The respondent no. 1 has entered its appearance through the learned Government Pleader. No appearance has been entered by the respondent no. 2. The learned advocate Mr. B.S. Patel appearing for the petitioner states that the respondent no. 2 too has been served directly by his clerk (clerk of Mr. B.S. Patel), but no affidavit of service has yet been filed. He further states that since the court has not permitted direct service to the respondents, he had applied to the Registrar for such permission, and the Registrar had, under the powers conferred upon him under Rule 7 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’), granted such permission. This raises two important questions of service of Notice/Rule Nisi ordered to be issued by the Court – (a) whether the Registrar has power to permit the petitioner/ appellant/applicant to effect direct service on the respondent/ opponent; and (b) when a petitioner/ appellant/applicant has been permitted to effect direct service, can the service be effected by the clerk of the advocate. Mr. Patel has submitted that Rule- 7 of the Rules empowers the Registrar, interalia, to comply with all the requirements of the law and the Rules. Mr. Patel has submitted that Rule- 7 of the Rules empowers the Registrar, interalia, to comply with all the requirements of the law and the Rules. Rule 12(e) of the Rules empowers the Registrar to permit service of notice or Rule Nisi directed, and Rule 14(b) of the Rules enjoins upon the Registrar to determine all matters regarding service or non-service of any notice or as to the mode of service. He has, therefore, submitted that in the present case, the Registrar had ordered direct service under the powers conferred upon him under the above referred Rules, and accordingly the clerk of the advocate has effected direct service. Rule-7 of the Rules deals with the powers and duties of the Registrar. Under the said Rule, interalia, the Registrar is empowerwed to admit to the register all memoranda of appeals, applications or cross objections and to comply with all other requirements of the law and the Rules. Rule-12 of the Rules refers to the matters which may be dealt with by the Registrar. Clause(e) thereof reads as “Applications for issue of a fresh notice or ordering a particular method of service of notice on a respondent”. Rule-13 of the rules enumerates the powers and duties of the Registrar. Clause(b) thereof reads as “determine all matters regarding service or non- service.” In addition to the above Rules, Rule 181 of the Rules provides for service of Rule Nisi. It provides, interalia, that service shall be effected on the respondent in the manner prescribed in Order-V of the Civil Procedure Code for the service of the summons upon a defendant in a suit. Order-V of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with issue and service of summons. Rule-9 thereof provides for service to a defendant by an officer of a court. Rule-17 thereof empowers the serving officer to cause service by affixing a copy of the summons in the contingencies mentioned therein. Rule-18 thereof enjoins upon the serving officer to make endorsement of time and manner of service. Rule 19A empowers the court to order simultaneous service by post in addition to personal service. Rule- 20 empowers the court to effect substituted service by affixing a copy of the summons in some conspicuous place in the court house and also the house of the defendant in the given contingencies. Rule 19A empowers the court to order simultaneous service by post in addition to personal service. Rule- 20 empowers the court to effect substituted service by affixing a copy of the summons in some conspicuous place in the court house and also the house of the defendant in the given contingencies. In my view, the only recognised modes of service are personal service by an officer of the court, service by post, service by affixing, and the substituted service. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the personal service by a litigant, or a clerk of the advocate, or any other person who is not an officer of the court, is not a recognised mode of service. Clause (e) of Rule-12 of the Rules empowers the registrar, interalia, to dispose of the application for ordering a particular method of service of notice on a respondent. Similarly, clause(b) of Rule-13 of the Rules empowers the Registrar to determine, interalia, the matter regarding mode of service. Both these provisions should necessarily mean any of the recognised modes of service. As I have held that personal service by a litigant (popularly known as ‘direct service’) is not a recognised mode of service, the Registrar is not empowered to order direct service i.e. the court alone can permit the direct service and in absence of a specific order by the court, no litigant can be permitted to effect service. Other question is whether the direct service permitted by the court can be effected by the clerk of an advocate. I am of the opinion that when a court orders direct service, it is the petitioner/appellant/applicant who is permitted to effect personal service and it is the duty of such petitioner/appellant/applicant to effect service personally i.e. the task can not be left to the clerk of an advocate who is neither an officer of the court, nor is permitted by the court to effect personal service. In the event the petitioner/appellant/applicant is a body corporate or a legal person the personal service can be effected by an authorised agent of such petitioner/appellant/ applicant. Therefore, to me, it appears that the personal service effected by the clerk of an advocate, can not be said to be service as required under the law. In the event the petitioner/appellant/applicant is a body corporate or a legal person the personal service can be effected by an authorised agent of such petitioner/appellant/ applicant. Therefore, to me, it appears that the personal service effected by the clerk of an advocate, can not be said to be service as required under the law. 20.01.2001 A Division Bench of this court (to which I was a party) has, in a suo- motu application (1999 {1} GLR 8 ), had an occasion to examine the question regarding proper service to the respondent. The question therein was whether the service effected upon the respondent was a proper service as required under the law. The questions which arise here were not directly at issue. Nonetheless, the Bench did accept the personal service effected by the clerk of an advocate and also suggested a draft affidavit of service which includes the service by a registered clerk of an advocate. I am, therefore, of the view that the propriety demands that the issues raised in this Reference should be referred to a Division Bench/Larger Bench.” 4. Thereafter, the matter did not proceed for whatever reason. Be that as it may. On 13.9.2011, this Court has passed the following order, which reads as under: “1. On 11/20.01.2001, this Court had passed the following order: “A Division Bench of this court (to which I was a party) has, in a suo-motu application (1999 {1} GLR 8 ), had an occasion to examine the question regarding proper service to the respondent. The question therein was whether the service effected upon the respondent was a proper service as required under the law. The questions which arise here were not directly at issue. Nonetheless, the Bench did accept the personal service effected by the clerk of an advocate and also suggested a draft affidavit of service which includes the service by a registered clerk of an advocate. I am, therefore, of the view that the propriety demands that the issues raised in this Reference should be referred to a Division Bench/Larger Bench.” 2. Hence, Registry is directed to place this matter before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for appropriate orders. 5. I am, therefore, of the view that the propriety demands that the issues raised in this Reference should be referred to a Division Bench/Larger Bench.” 2. Hence, Registry is directed to place this matter before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for appropriate orders. 5. So far as the first question is concerned, once the matter is seized by the court, and the proceedings are going on, and in between the court proceedings, the Registrar does not have any power to entertain any application and pass an order for direct service. Rule 7 and 12 (e) of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993 reads as under: 7. Powers and duties of the Registrar, Deputy Registrar and Assistant Registrar in connection with Admission of Proceedings. The Registrar, the Deputy Registrar or the Assistant Registrar shall admit to the Registrar all memorandums of appeals, applications or cross-objections, which are presented within the prescribed time, are duly stamped, are accompanied by the prescribed copies and comply with all the other requirements of the law and these rules. 12. Matters which may be dealt with by Registrar.-In addition to the powers conferred upon him by the other rules and subject to such limitations as may be prescribed therein the Registrar may dispose of the following: (a) xxx xxx xxx (b) xxx xxx xxx (c) xxx xxx xxx (d) xxx xxx xxx (e) Applications for issue of a fresh notice or ordering a particular method of service of notice on a respondent. 6. Rules 7 and 12(e) of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993 gives power to the Registrar only to decide the dispute with regard to assessment of process fee, but under the guise of this power, he cannot direct or permit for direct service on a party, if the court has refrained itself from passing the order. Hence, issue no. 1 is answered likewise holding that it is the court which can pass orders and the Registry is required to do is either to issue fresh notice subsequently under Rules 13 and 181 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993 and Order V of the Civil Procedure Code will have to be looked into. Thus, the Registrar General cannot determine the mode of service. It is the Court which can permit such service only subsequently if the service is not effected. Thus, the Registrar General cannot determine the mode of service. It is the Court which can permit such service only subsequently if the service is not effected. The Registrar can pass further order for extending the date but no fresh order can be passed. 7. Now, we come to the second question as to whether process can be served through a recognized clerk of the advocate, if direct service is permitted. This question question is covered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of SUO MOTU vs. REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT, reported in 2002(2) GLR 1649 , wherein, the Division Bench of this Court, after examining the Rules 448 and 455 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993, has held as under: “Rule 455 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993, makes it manifest that a recognised clerk is entitled to act on behalf of his master’s client in all matters of formal nature which do not require the personal attendance of an Advocate. When the direct service is permitted by the Court on the opponent/respondent, it cannot be said that for the purpose of effectuating the direct service, the personal attendance of an Advocate is necessary. The service of Notice or Rule Nisi issued by the Court on the opponent/respondent is a ministerial act and of formal nature, and therefore, a recognised clerk would be entitled to serve the notice on the opponent/respondent on behalf of his master’s client. However, this does not mean that the recognised clerk, who is entitled to effectuate the direct service on the opponent/respondent on behalf of his master’s client, is entitled to hand over packet of direct service to any other recognised clerk of another Advocate or person, but must perform this act himself because delegation of performance of an act on behalf of his master’s client, is not contemplated by the Gujarat High Court Rules.” 8. Therefore, the Division Bench of this Court has held that the recognized clerk of the advocate can effect the direct service, for which direction was issued to the appellant. We agree with the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court. Hence, both the questions stand answered accordingly. 9. Let the papers be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice for nominating the main matter to be heard by the concerned/ appropriate Bench having jurisdiction.