IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Civil Writ Petition No.1083 of 2006. Date of decision : 30.04.2010. Shanti Swaroop Sharma … …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Others … …Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner: Mr.Deepak Kaushal, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr.P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General with Mr.R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General, for the respondents. Dev Darshan Sud, J. When this writ petition was taken up for hearing, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in the reply filed by respondents No.1 to 3 in para 98(H) the stand of the respondents is:- “98(H) That the Writ Petition is devoid of merit and may kindly be dismissed with the directions that as and when the area is replenished the Petitioner may represent for the restoration of lease for sustainable 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the judgment? 2 mining, subject again to the consultation of the concerned Gram Panchayats.” It is undisputed that the petitioner has made representations to the respondents on 19.1.2007 and 16.2.2007 which have been placed on record of the writ petition alongwith the rejoinder filed by the petitioner at pages No.1062 and 1063 respectively. In this situation, the petitioner seeks liberty to withdraw this writ petition with permission to approach this Court again, if so required and necessary. Permission granted. The writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn with permission to the petitioner to approach this Court again in case his representations are decided against him. The State Government is directed to dispose of the representations of the petitioner by a speaking order on or before 30th November, 2010. All interim orders stand vacated. All pending miscellaneous applications are disposed of. (Dev Darshan Sud) Judge. April 30, 2010 (Kuldip Singh) (aks) Judge.