IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 204 of 2010 (M/S) M/s Vinayak Poulty Farm and another. …… Petitioners. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. … Respondents. Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.C.Tiwari, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. B.S.Adhikari, Advocate, for the applicant-respondent no.3. Mr. Anant Kumar Agarwal, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Advocate, for the respondent No.2. Date July 16, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Recall Application No. 430 of 2010) (Delay Condonation Application No. 4381 of 2010) Heard learned counsel for the parties on recall application, which is accompanied with delay condonation application. By the present application, the applicant-respondent no. 3 seeks recall of the order dated 24-2-2010 passed by this Court, whereby the Pollution Control Board –respondent no. 2 was directed to pass a speaking order expeditiously, preferably within a period of ten days, after hearing the parties concerned. It was also ordered that till then, the impugned order dated 27-1-2010 passed by respondent no. 2 against the petitioner (Annexure-1 to the petition) shall be kept in abeyance. The grievance of the applicant-respondent no.3 is that despite the clear-cut order of this Court dated 24-2-2010, the respondent no. 2 has not passed any order in the matter and that the actual period for which consent was provided by the respondent no. 2 to the petitioner was from 18-12-2009 till 31-3-2010. According to the applicant-respondent no. 3, the consent letter in favour of the 2 petitioner had already expired but the petitioner is enjoying the stay order granted by this Court. This fact is not disputed that the Pollution Control Board has not taken any decision on the complaints made by the Gramya Sudhar Evam Paryavaran Bachav Sangthan or any other person, as has been directed by this Court vide order dated 24-2- 2010. It is also not disputed that the decision has to be taken by the Regional Officer concerned of the respondent no. 2 in the matter. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, it is provided that if the decision is not taken by the Regional Officer concerned as per order dated 24-2-2010 passed by this Court within a period of four weeks from today, the applicant-respondent no.3 would be at liberty to file a contempt petition against the Regional Officer concerned. With the above direction and observation, the recall application filed by the respondent no.3 along with delay condonation application is disposed of. ( B.S.Verma, J. ) RCP