Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3000010 of 2003 Petitioner :- Vijai Pal Singh And Others 6 Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thr.Collector Sitapur And Others 2 Counsel for Petitioner :- J.P.Maurya Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J. 1. Seen office report dated 13.5.2022, 27.5.2022 and 16.8.2022 whereby it has been reported that notice was issued vide dispatch nos.2691,2689, 2688, 2687, 2686, 2685, 2690 all dated 18.4.2022 to the petitioners. In regard to petitioner nos.1,4 and 7, undelivered cover returned back with the remark that recipients are not available on the address and family members were intimated but no one was present to receive the notice. In regard to petitioner nos.2,3,5 and 6, neither any undelivered cover returned back nor any Vakalatnama has been filed. Thereafter, card notice were issued vide dispatch nos.2691, 2687, 2690 dated 18.4.2022 through registered post AD. Undelivered covers received back with the remark that on the address, recipients not available and intimation was given to the family members but no one received the notice. Card notice was issued to petitioner no.3 vide dispatch no.2688 dated 18.4.2022 through registered post at corrected address. Undelievered cover received back with the remark "Aurangabad Kheri". Card notice was issued vide dispatched no.2689, 2686, 2685 on 18.4.2022 through registered post. Neither any undelivered cover received back nor any power has been filed on their behalf. Another notice was issued to petitioner nos.1 to 7 through registered post. Notices of petitioner nos.1 to 7 has returned back with remark that "recipient is not available at given address:. Hence service of card notice upon petitioner nos.1,4 and 7 is not sufficient. Card notice sent to the petitioner no.3 has returned back with remark that "Aurangabad Kheri". Hence service of card notice upon petitioner no.3 is not sufficient. Card notices were sent to the petitioner nos.2,5 and 6 did not returned back , hence service of card notices upon petitioner nos.2,5 and 6 is sufficient. 2. In view of the fact that due to non-availability of the petitioners, intimation was given to family members in regard to notice and in view of the provisions contained under Chapter VIII Rule 12 Explanation (II) of the High Court Rules, notices are deemed to be sufficient. 3. Today, none has put in appearance for the petitioners. 4. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. 5. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Order Date :- 7.4.2025 GK Sinha Digitally signed by :- GAUTAM KUMAR SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench