ORDER R.S. Dhavan, J. - This writ petition has been pending in this Court for 16 years but without justifiable cause. All these 16 years the petitioners have utilised the stay order which was granted by the Bench on May 5, 1972. It' was filed on Feb. 24, 1972, only to seek an order of "Presented today" and seek time to file a supplementary affidavit. The supplementary affidavit was filed three months later, on May 5, 1972. On this date the petition was admitted and a stay order was granted. 2. Now comes the question of the pendency of the petition without cause. For a part of the period the responsibility is of the petitioners or its counsel and for the balance period of the registry. This is a matter on record. Normally the court does not comment upon such a situation and may overlook it but when a case is pending for more than 16 years and the respondents have no notice of it and the stay order is being utilised, then a situation like this ought not to be without judicial notice. 3. When the petition was admitted on May 5, 1972 steps were taken to effect service upon the respondents. For some time the registry reported that notices for service upon respondents Nos. 3 to 9 had been returned undelivered. In reference to respondent 3, it is reported that it was undelivered with a remark "wrong address". This is on the order sheet dated Sept. 29, 1975. Three years since the filing of the petitioner had passed. On Oct. 23, 1975 the Joint Registrar required fresh steps to be taken. Steps afresh, were taken by the office of the learned counsel after more than two years. Steps were taken on Dec. 2, 1977. 4. By now five years had passed since the petition was filed. Now began another chapter and unfortunately the registry of the court comes into the picture in keeping the proceedings pending. No report was made by the registry on the result of the steps taken in December 1977 to effect service upon respondents 3 to 9. 2, 1977. 4. By now five years had passed since the petition was filed. Now began another chapter and unfortunately the registry of the court comes into the picture in keeping the proceedings pending. No report was made by the registry on the result of the steps taken in December 1977 to effect service upon respondents 3 to 9. A year and a half passed, and on July 23, 1979 the registry submitted a report that all the papers in pursuance of which steps had been taken, that is notices and summons for effecting service upon the respondents had been 'mis restored' (sic) in some other file. The entire exercise of effecting service upon the said respondents was set at naught and the petition had been pending by now for seven years. This report of the registry was put before the Court on January 18, 1988, after nine years. The petition had now been pending for sixteen years. The only inevitable order was that the petitioners be asked to take steps again. This was the order passed by the Court on 18 Jan. 1988. Now, the petitioners or their counsel did not respond to the order by taking fresh steps and this situation remains till today. 5. On January 18, 1988 was not the, first time that the petitioners were being required to take steps, again to arrange service upon the respondents. This exercise had taken place earlier also. Further indulgence must now cease. 6. Chapter XII of the Rules of the High Court relate to 'Service of Notice and Summoning of Record'. In the present context Rr. 3 and 4 of this Chapter apply. 7. Rule 3 says that notices to parties intended to be served will not issue unless deposited by party seeking issue of notice upon an order of court. Steps in pursuance of a court order is to be taken within ten days. Should steps as prescribed under R. 4 not be taken, then the registry is obliged to record a note on the state of affairs on steps regarding service of notice, and the matter is to be listed before the Court. The proviso to R. 1 suggests that the registry or office concerned will list matter of violation of Rr. 3 and 4, aforesaid, immediately on expiry of ten days, since the day by which steps were meant to be taken. 8. The proviso to R. 1 suggests that the registry or office concerned will list matter of violation of Rr. 3 and 4, aforesaid, immediately on expiry of ten days, since the day by which steps were meant to be taken. 8. It would be inappropriate and; otherwise not in the interests of justice to grant further indulgence to the petitioner to effect service on the respondents concerned, after sixteen years. As steps have not been taken as of date, Rr. 3 and 4, aforesaid, stand violated. The writ petition stands dismissed against respondents 3 to 9 and the interim order granted on May 5, 1972 is recalled. 9. Even when the matter was taken u for consideration before the Court for hearing no one has appeared on behalf of the; petitioners. Regard being had to the circumstances as are on record, it does not appear that any one is interested in pursuing this writ petition. Thus it would be futile to keep this petition pending on the list when there is no interest to prosecute it, taking into account the other factor that it has remained pending for 16 years. 10. Thus against respondents 3 to 9 the petition has been dismissed for want of service upon them in accordance with Chap. XII of the Rules of the Court, aforesaid, and against the remaining respondents for not having sufficient interest in prosecuting the petition. The petition is, thus, dismissed. 11. The court parts with this case by placing on record that the registry or the office concerned of this Court is also responsible for the pendency of this case for more than sixteen years, without cause. 12. As the writ petition has remained pending for 16 years in the circumstances already noticed it would be appropriate that the Registrar, High Court intimates respondents 1 and 2 and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Baghpat district Meerut and the Commissioner, Meerut of the orders which have been passed today.