\V $-* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHT I w.P.(c) BrTolzoos RAJPATI & ORS ..... petitioners Through Ms. Laxmibai Leitarthen, Advocate for Mr. Pardeep Gupta, Advocate \-'- versus Govr. oF N.c.T. oF DELHI & oRS ..... Respondents Through Mr. N. Wazirj, Advocate g/, And '. w.P.(c) 4oitzoro PARDARSHITA & ORS ..... petitioners Through Mr. Tariq Adeeb, Advocate '-G VETSLTS '.'-- Govr. oF N.c.T. oF DELHI & oRS ..... Respondents Tluough iW. N. Waziri, Advocate - CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR ORDER " 11.08.2010 1' Mr. Waziri, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents hands over two lists. The first list is of 11 persons figuring in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 8170 of 2009 stating that their cases have been rejected prirnarily on the ground that those persons are not residing at their addresses. As regards Smt. Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified -t \) Kaur, APL Card No. 56120274 has already been issued. As regards Ram Pyaari, she is no more. 2. The second list of 18 persons figrring in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 403 of 2010 s'tating that their cases have been rejected and in a majority of the ,r,, .ut.s, the persons were found to be having an annual income above Rs. 24,0001-.In a few cases they were not residing atthe given address. 3. Mr. Waziri ftirther infonns the Court that rejection letters were sent to each of these persons by speed post. Proof of dispatch by speed post is also enclosed. Jeet Smt. --?.. - 4. It would be open to the Petitioners who are aggrieved by the I orders to pursue the matter in terms of the revised procedure which to be working. 5. This Court does not consider it writ petitions are disposed of. necessary to issue ftirther directions. The S. MU AUGUST tt,20t0 rk rejection is stated LIDHAR, J