IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 200 of 2009 Prashant Jaiswal ….…… Appellant Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ………. Respondents Mr. Gopal Narain, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for the applicant in the clarification application. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Addl. Standing Counsel (Govt. of Uttarakhand) for the respondents. Date of Judgment: 08.03.2011 JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. BARIN GHOSH, C.J. (ORAL) Clarification Application No. 10463 of 2009. Clarification application is not being pressed and, accordingly, the same is dismissed. Stay Vacation Application No. 368 of 2010 In the stay vacation application, filed by the State, it is being contended that the appellant, on the strength of permit granted by the State of Uttar Pradesh to him before the State of Uttarakhand was created, is plying buses on the route, commencing from Dehradun and terminating at Paonta Saheb respectively, situated in the State of Uttarakhand and the State of Himachal Pradesh. It may be possible that at the time of grant of permit in favour of the appellant, there was reciprocal arrangement and agreement between the State of Uttar Pradesh and the State of Himachal Pradesh, pertaining to the said route, but after creation of the State of Uttarakhand, the said agreement has come to an end. Admittedly, the State of Uttarakhand has not yet made any arrangement or agreement with the State of Himachal Pradesh, pertaining to grant of permit on the said route. 2. That being so, the State of Uttarakhand, while is not entitled to permit anyone to ply vehicles on the said route, the appellant, on the strength of his earlier permit, is also not entitled to ply his buses on the said route. 2 3. The above clarifies the interim order passed by this Court. With the above clarification, the stay vacation application is disposed of. Special Appeal No. 200 of 2009 In view of what has been said above, we think, the purpose of present appeal stands disposed of. We, accordingly, replace the judgment and order under appeal by what has been provided above. In other words, until such time there are arrangements or agreement inter se the State of Uttarakhand and the State of Himachal Pradesh at the instance of the State of Uttarakhand or its predecessor State, i.e., the State of Uttar Pradesh, no permit can be issued and, if such permit has been issued, the same shall not remain valid. This order will not prevent the State of Uttarakhand to enter into appropriate agreement with the State of Himachal Pradesh. 2. The appeal stands disposed of. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 08.03.2011 08.03.2011 Amit