1. The endorsement on the board shows that rule is unserved qua respondents No.2 to 6. Mr. Sunil Mehta, learned advocate for the petitioner has invited attention to the affidavit of service of notice dated 16th March, 2012 filed by one Shri Ranjitsinh Bhati, Assistant Law Officer of the petitioner Board wherein it has been stated that after receipt of notice of service, he had personally gone to the office of Ganesh Radiators Pvt. Ltd. situated at Shankarbhai Patel Industrial Estate at Manjusar, taluka Savli, district Vadodara on 13th March, 2012 and it was found that Ganesh Radiators Pvt. Ltd. has closed down the unit since long; that he also tried to contact the Directors of Ganesh Radiators but has come to know that they had left India since long; that he also visited the house of the Director but no one was residing there since long. Under the circumstances, the notice could not be served upon the respondents. It was accordingly submitted that it is not possible to trace out the respondents and effect service upon them.
2. A perusal of the cause title of the petition as well as the relief claimed therein indicates that the relief prayed for in the petition is against the respondents No.2 to 6. Under the circumstances, in the absence of service to the respondents, the present case cannot be adjudicated. In the light of the fact that the petitioner has expressed inability to serve the respondents No.2 to 6, the petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.
( Harsha Devani, J. ) hki