Attau Rahman Masoodi, J. - (1.) As per service report dated 24.1.2017, service on respondents no. 1 to 4 is deemed sufficient under Chapter VIII Rule 12 Exp. II of the High Court Rules. Sri Abdul Rafey Siddiqui has put in appearance on behalf of respondents no. 1 and 2. Respondent no. 3 despite service being sufficient, has neither chosen to appear in person nor through counsel. Sri Akhter Abbas learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no. 4.
(2.) This appeal was admitted by order dated 27.5.2016. The point for determination that has cropped up is a legal question, therefore, parties were heard in the light of material available on record. The factual grounds raised in the appeal are dependent upon the legal question hence need not be delved into in detail.
(3.) Insofar as the ownership of private vehicles operated on contract basis by Uttar Pradesh Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the 'UPSRTC') is concerned, law is settled on the point by the apex court in the case reported in (2011) 8 SCC 142 (Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Kulsum and others).;