IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1023 OF 2006 (SS) Smt. Neelam Sharma …………..Petitioner. Versus Nainital Almora Kshetriya Gramin Bank and others. ……..Respondents. Ms. Mamta Bisht, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. Lalit Belwal, Advocate for respondents. 20th October, 2009 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Heard Ms. Mamta Bisht, Advocate for petitioner and Mr. Lalit Belwal, Advocate for respondents. The petitioner who was a Cashier-cum-Clerk in Nainital Almora Kshetriya Gramin Bank had filed this writ petition for deciding his representation in respect to her transfer from one branch to another, which was not being decided by the Bank Authorities and consequently the petitioner filed present writ petition with the following relief: “(a) A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pass an appropriate order on the representation of the petitioner forthwith. (b) Any other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. (c) To award cost throughout to the petitioner.” 2 In the counter affidavit, which has been filed on behalf of the Nainital Almora Kshetriya Gramin Bank, it has been stated that the representation of the petitioner has now been decided on 14th August, 2006. The order has also been annexed as Annexure –CA -1 to the Counter Affidavit. In view of the aforesaid averment made in the counter affidavit and also in view of the statement given at the bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Mamta Bisht that the writ petition has become infructuous, the writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 20.10.2009 Rathour