IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 334 of 2006(M/B) Nain Singh Rawat S/o Late Sri Fateh Singh Rawat, R/o Village Bhullar, Block Chakrata, District Dehradun. Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal, through Deputy Secretary, Uttaranchal Administration, Dehradun. 2. Divisional Commissioner, PWD, Garhwal Mandal, District Pauri Garhwal. 3. Secretary, PWD, Uttaranchal Administration, Dehradun. 4. Chief Engineer, Level I, PWD, District Dehradun. 5. Superintendent Engineer, 24th Circle, PWD, District Dehradun. 6. Executive Engineer, Temporary Division, Chakrata, District Dehradun. 7. Pritam Singh, MLA, Minister for Panchayati, Raj, Govt. of Uttaranchal, 33 Gandhi Road, District Dehradun. ……… Respondents. Ms. Indu Sharma, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sharad Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. (Oral) Ms. Indu Sharma, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sharad Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. 2. Petitioner Nain Singh Rawat has filed this writ petition styled as ‘Public Interest Litigation.’ 3. As copies of some official documents were filed as Annexures with the petition, the petitioner, in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Gurpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab & others reported in (2005) 5 SCC 136, was directed vide order dated 27.03.2006 to state on affidavit as to how these official documents came into his possession. The affidavit was directed to be filed within a period of one week. 4. Through a period of more than three months has elapsed since then, the petitioner has not filed the affidavit as directed above. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not responding to the repeated communication to that effect. 6. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. 7. Consequently, CLMA No. 3392 of 2006 also stands dismissed. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) (Rajeev Gupta, C.J.) 17.07.2006 17.07.2006 G