IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (P.I.L.) No. 613 of 2008 Prof. Ajay Singh Rawat …….. ……… Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ……….…….. Respondents Present: Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Anjali Bhargava, Standing Counsel for Union of India/ respondent No.1. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 7. Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal and Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocates for respondent Nos. 8 & 9. Coram:- Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, Chief Justice Hon’ble V.K. Bist, Judge Date : 27.08.2010 JUDGMENT Barin Ghosh, C. J. (Oral) Although no order was passed by us to withdraw the Government Order dated 11.06.2010, instead, while the matter was placed before us, we expressed a prima facie view that the said order is in contempt of Court, but having regard to the fact that the said order has been withdrawn and cancelled by the order dated 26.08.2010, the matter pertaining to the said Government Order dated 11.06.2010 stands concluded. The main matter also stands, accordingly, disposed of. (Clarification/Modification Application No. 726 of 2010) This application has been filed seeking modification of the judgment and order of this Court dated 11.02.2010. In the said judgment and order, it has been stated by the Division Bench that the leases granted in favour of the applicants have since expired. The applicants seek deletion of the said portion of the order. Contentions of the applicants are that leases were granted to them for three years on 30.08.2006 and on 09.12.2006 respectively, but the applicants were 2 asked to stop work from 20.03.2007 for one year, and accordingly, the lease was continuing as on 11.2.2010. It should be noted here that before the judgment and order dated 11.02.2010 was passed, the applicants herein filed their affidavits in the proceeding, in which the said judgment and order dated 11.02.2010 was passed, whereby they brought on record the aforementioned assertions. Considering those assertions, the judgment and order dated 11.02.2010 was passed. The logical conclusion would be that the Division Bench refused to accept the contention of automatic extension of the leases for prevention to work for one year. That may be a correct conclusion or may be an incorrect conclusion but after the matter was concluded by the judgment and order dated 11.02.2010 the Court became functus officio and cannot supply anything, nor can deduct anything from the said judgment and order, and accordingly, the application is rejected. All other applications pending in the matter also stand disposed of accordingly. ( V.K. Bist, J. ) ( Barin Ghosh, C.J. ) August 27, 2010 P. Singh