Counsel for the petitioner submits that the directions given in the previous order even for collecting the notice (dasti) for effecting service on the respondent no. 1 / complainant, in these revision petitions, has not been complied with. He, however, submits that a sum of Rs.5,000/- to respondent no. 1 / complainant in each revision petition has been remitted by means of bankers cheques by registered post, which have not been returned back undelivered. He also submits that against order dated 22.05.2012 of this Commission, petitioner has filed SLP before the Supreme Court vide diary no. 26175 / 2012 and 26176 / 2012, which SLPs are yet to be numbered and listed for hearing. 2. Present petitions were filed by the petitioner who was arrayed as opposite party in the complaints against the order dated 3.2.2011 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short he State Commission, in FA No. 580 / 2005 and FA No. 581/2005. The petitions were listed for preliminary / admission hearing for the first time on 9.05.2011 and were adjourned from time to time on the request made by the counsel for the petitioner / proxy counsel, showing indulgence. In these matters, the notice issued to the respondent no. 1 / complainant were received back with postal remarks eft ot knownand, therefore, on the request of the counsel for the petitioner, we directed the petitioner to collect dasti notice to serve on the respondent no. 1 / complainant which the petitioner has failed to do. Not only that, the cost imposed on past occasions which were to be deposited in the onsumer legal aid accountof this Commission, have also not been deposited. Remittance amount of Rs.5,000/- is also not in consonance with the order passed by us, because this amount of Rs.5,000/- was in addition to the amount of Rs.5,000/- which was required to be remitted to the respondent no. 1 / complainant by the order dated 11.07.2011. That apart petitioner despite repeated opportunities granted to him, has failed to deposit even a sum of Rs.1 lakh, in each case, subject to which the operation of the impugned order was stayed. All these facts and circumstances would amply demonstrate that the petitioner is neither sincere nor serious in prosecuting these petitions despite repeated opportunities granted to them. For the these reasons, we dismiss the revision petitions for the persistent default on the part of the petitioner in complying with the directions and having failed to effect service on the respondent no. 1/ complainant despite opportunities granted to the petitioner.