IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 348 OF 2008 (M/S) Mohd. Zafar …………Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and another. …… Respondents. Mr. Lok Pal Singh, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Add. Chief Standing Counsel for State of Uttarakhand / respondents. 28th April, 2009 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. A counter affidavit has been filed by the State along with an application for condonation of delay. The reasons assigned for delay in filing counter affidavit appear to be just and bona fide. Delay is condoned. Counter affidavit is taken on record. However, the counsel for the petitioner contends that the writ petition has become infructuous. In view of the statement given by the counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 28.4.2009 Rathour