(1.) ON 1.4.2010, the following order was made. The record reveals that rule, which was issued by this Court on 03.02.2010 permitting service by the applicant directly has been served on the Power of Attorney Holder of the original petitioners, opponent Nos.1 to 10 herein, and hence, none is present on their behalf. In the circumstances, it would be just and fair if fresh notice of rule is issued qua opponent Nos.1 to 10, the original petitioners, and the applicant is directed to effect service on the original petitioners and not the Power of Attorney holder.
(2.) ACCORDINGLY, fresh notice of RULE returnable on 30.04.2010 qua opponent Nos.1 to 10 only. Direct service permitted, subject to the applicant effecting service only on the original petitioners and not the Power of Attorney holder.