Punjab State Pollution Control Board Member Secretary vs. Centre For Public Interest Litigation Delhi Secretary

ITEM NO.135 REGISTRAR COURT.1 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR S.G. SHAH Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).24106/2004 M/S. ENT NIRMATA SANGH & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s) (With office report) with SLP(C) No.8965-8966/2005 (with office report) Date: 05/07/2012 This Petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr. Rachit Mittal, Adv. Mr. Sudhir Kulshreshtha,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. S.A. Matto, Adv. Mrs Anil Katiyar,Adv. Mr. Prabal Bagchi, Adv. Mr. D.N. Goburdhan ,Adv Ms. Nandini Gupta, Adv. Ms. Hemantika Wahi ,Adv Ms. Naresh Bakshi ,Adv Mr. Suraj Singh, Adv. Mr. Pradeep Misra ,Adv Mr. Prashant Bhushan ,Adv Mr. Vijay Panjwani ,Adv Mr. R. Ayyam Perumal ,Adv Mr. V.G. Pragasam ,Adv Mr. Yash Pal Dhingra ,Adv Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh ,Adv Ms. Kamakshi S. Mehlwal ,Adv Mr. Gautam Narayan, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Nayyar ,Adv Mr. Manoj Kumar, Adv. Mr. S. Chandra Shekhar ,Adv Item No.135 -2- Mr. M.S. Panda, Adv. Mr.Rutwik Panda ,Adv Mr. Snehasish Mukherjee ,Adv Mr. Navin Sharma, Adv. Mr. B.S. Banthia, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Verma, Adv.

$

Mr. Yashpal Dhingra, Adv.

• Mr. V.D. Khanna, Adv.
• Mr. K.B. Rohtagi, Adv.
• Mr. T. Harish Kumar, Adv.
• Mr. Manik Karanjawala, Adv.

O R D E R It is unfortunate that the Advocates appearing before this Court in many cases do not know that for which respondents they are appearing.

In the present case, notice upon the petitioner in SLP(C) No.8965- 8966/2005 is to be served because their previous Advocate, Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog has been designated as Senior Advocate. At least to that effect, Registry has to be careful, since there is no proper disclosure in the office report.

Let there be a fresh notice for alternative arrangement upon petitioner in SLP(C) Nos.8965-8966/2005, before 23.8.2012, which is to be forwarded to the District and Sessions Court, Patiala for confirming service without fail, even by affixing the same at the given address, if it could not be served in due course. Item No.135 -3-

However, the fact remains that the petitioner in such SLP being Punjab State Pollution Control Board is respondent No.17 in connected SLP No.24106/2004 and though it has been served in the SLP there is no separate disclosure regarding appearance of any Advocate nor vakalatnama. All such information was to be gathered from the original record only.

In view of the fact that we do not have proper and better Serving Agency including postal services which confirms the services properly in time.

List again on 23.8.2012.

rd