IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 26 of 2010 (S/B) Dr. Sanjeev Kumar Jain. .……… Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. .………. Respondents. Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.M. Raturi, Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. P.S. Saun, Advocate for respondent No. 4. Ms. Beena Pandey, Standing Counsel (U.P. Govt.) for respondent Nos. 5 & 6. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. J.S. KHEHAR, C. J. (Oral) A joint counter affidavit on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, has been filed in Court today. The same is taken on record. Copy thereof has been furnished to the learned counsel for the petitioner. Based on the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, learned counsel for the petitioner states, that the instant writ petition has been rendered infructuous, inasmuch as, the prayer made by the petitioner for his relieving, so as to enable him to assume his duties in the successor State of Uttar Pradesh, has been acceded to. It is submitted, that the petitioner has already been relieved. In view of the above, the instant writ petition is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C. J.) 25.03.2010 25.03.2010 G