IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Recall Application 443/2011 Delay Condonation Application 6135/2011 In Writ Petition (PIL) No. 422/2008 Preetam Singh … Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & Others … Respondents Mr. Sudhir Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Vinay Kumar, Standing Counsel, for the respondents no. 1 to 5. Mr. D. Barthwal, Advocate, for the respondent no. 6/review applicant. Date of order: 24.6.2011 Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. BARIN GHOSH, C.J. (ORAL) There is no reason to recall the order of this Court at the instance of respondent no. 6. The writ petition was disposed of taking into account the contention of the respondents no. 1 to 5 that a decision has been taken not to allot any land out of the surplus land to the respondent no. 6. The writ petition was, accordingly, disposed of as having become infructuous. The Court, at the same time, held that it would be imperative for respondents no. 1 to 5 to communicate the decision, and the basis thereof, to respondent no. 6, with liberty to respondent no. 6 to take such recourse to law as he may be advised, if he is aggrieved by such decision. 2. In the application for recall, it has been stated that no decision has been communicated to respondent no. 6 by the respondents no. 1 to 5. If that be so, there is no ground for recalling the order, but it 2 may be possible that a contempt may lie. We, accordingly, dispose of the application for recall and also the application for condonation of delay in filing the recall application. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 24.6.2011 24.6.2011 Prabodh