IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1222 OF 2008 (MS) U.P. State Road Transport Corporation ……….Petitioner. Versus State of U.P. and others. ……Respondents. Mr. Sharad Sharma, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Ms. Indu Sharma, Advocate for petitioner. None appears for the respondents. 19th November, 2009 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Heard Mr. Sharad Sharma, Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Indu Sharma, Advocate for petitioner. List revised. Case called out twice. None appears for the respondents. The petitioner had challenged the modification made by the State Government under the powers vested with it under Section 100 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 modifying certain routes. However today, a statement has been made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Sharad Sharma, Senior Advocate that during the pendency of the writ petition, a notification has also been made under Section 100 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, whereby the route has been notified and consequently, the writ petition has become now infructuous. Based on the aforesaid statement, which has been made before this Court, the writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 19.11.2009 Rathour