IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 72 of 2010 (PIL) Dileep Kumar Singh Bisht ……… Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ……… Respondents Mr. Manoj Tiwari, Senior Advocate with Mr. H.M. Bhatia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.N. Babulkar, Advocate General for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate for respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Mr. Arvind Vashisth, Advocate for respondent No. 5. Writ Petition No. 1336 of 2010 (M/S) Indus Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd. ……… Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ……… Respondents Mr. Sunil Mathews and Ms. Puja Banga, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. S.N. Babulkar, Advocate General for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate for respondent No. 3. Writ Petition No. 1337 of 2010 (M/S) HUL Hydro Power Pvt. Ltd. ……… Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ……… Respondents Mr. Sunil Mathews and Ms. Puja Banga, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. S.N. Babulkar, Advocate General for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate for respondent No. 3. Writ Petition No. 1345 of 2010 (M/S) Chandigarh Distilliers and Bottlers Ltd. and another ……… Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ……… Respondents Mr. A.K. Ganguly, Senior Advocate with Mr. Yashraj Singh Deora and Mr. Siddhartha Sah, Advocates for the petitioners. Mr. S.N. Babulkar, Advocate General for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate for respondent No. 3. 2 Writ Petition No. 1346 of 2010 (M/S) ARVS Construction Pvt. Ltd. ……… Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ……… Respondents Mr. Naresh Pant and Ms. Menka Tripathi, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. S.N. Babulkar, Advocate General for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate for respondent No. 3. Writ Petition No. 1347 of 2010 (M/S) Lalit Mahajan ……… Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ……… Respondents Mr. Nishit Kush, Mr. Dinesh Sharma, Mr. Lalit Sharma and Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. S.N. Babulkar, Advocate General for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate for respondent No. 3. Writ Petition No. 1348 of 2010 (M/S) Ms. Anila Mahajan ……… Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ……… Respondents Mr. Nishit Kush, Mr. Dinesh Sharma, Mr. Lalit Sharma and Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. S.N. Babulkar, Advocate General for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate for respondent No. 3. Writ Petition No. 1360 of 2010 (M/S) M/s Madhucon Projects Ltd. ……… Petitioner Versus Uttarakhand Jal Vidhyut Nigam Ltd. and others ……… Respondents Mr. Jeevesh Nagrath and Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate for respondent No. 1. Mr. S.N. Babulkar, Advocate General for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 3 Writ Petition No. 1460 of 2010 (M/S) M/s Regent Atomobiles Ptv. Ltd. ……… Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ……… Respondents Mr. Manesh Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.N. Babulkar, Advocate General for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate for respondent No. 3. Date of order: 29.12.2010 Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Learned Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the State, has produced applications as well as minutes of the meeting of the Empowered Committee. They are in bulk. They be treated, for the time being, as part of the records for this case. 2. Learned Advocate on record for the State is requested to sort out those, give them appropriate identification numbers in consultation with the Officers of the Registry and to prepare an index thereof. After such exercise is completed, Registry is directed to prepare xerox copies thereof of such number, so as to supply one set to the learned Advocate on record for the writ petitioner in the Public Interest Litigation, learned Advocate on record for the State and learned Advocates on records of each of the writ petitions tagged with the Public Interest Litigation. 3. We are permitting filing of counter affidavits where the parties have not yet filed counter affidavits until 18th February, 2011. Rejoinder affidavit(s) thereto by 28th February, 2011. In the event any of the parties seek to bring on record any other document they wish to rely, they shall be entitled to file supplementary affidavit(s) by 18th February, 2011 with copies to the other side, so that if the other side seeks to deal with the same, they can do so by filing rejoinder affidavit on or before 28th February, 2011. 4 4. Learned Advocate on record for the State is requested to bring on the next date of hearing the project reports prepared by the State in respect of those State identified projects which according to the writ petitioner were removed from the State List. 5. We are accepting the Impleadment Application filed in Court today by the writ petitioner in the Public Interest Litigation. We are making Uttarakhand Infrastructure Projects Company Private Ltd., A – 24, Chandralok Colony, 101, Rajpur Road, Dehradun as a party to the said writ petition. Let a notice be served upon the added respondent. Requisites therefor be filed by 4th January, 2011. 6. Let these writ petitions be listed on 1st March, 2011 with an understanding that the matters shall be heard for their conclusion. (V.K. Bist, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 29.12.2010 29.12.2010 Amit