IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 10618 of 2008. Decided on: 27.04.2011. ______________________________________________ Julfi Ram Mandyal. … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Ms. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General for respondents No.1 and 2. None for respondents No.3 and 4. Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral). Ms. Ranjana Parmar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to subsequent developments in law, the present petition is rendered infructuous. Consequently, the same is dismissed having become infructuous, so also the pending application(s), if any. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. April 27, 2011. (sck). 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?