IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1706 of 2010. Abdul Gani S/O Haneef. … Petitioner. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. …Respondents. Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. N.P.Sah, Standing Counsel, learned counsel for the respondents. Date September 29, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Stay Application No. 8371 of 2010) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief:- i) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned report dated 25-8-2010 (contained as Annexure No.7 to the writ petition.) ii) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari calling for the record from the respondent no. 5 for the reconstitution of Village Panchayat, Bharapur, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar. iii) Issue any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case be passed in favour of petitioner. iv) Cost of the petition be awarded in favour of the petitioner. By a perusal of the impugned report, it reveals that it is recommendation made by the Additional District Magistrate ( Finance & Revenue) Haridwar to the Collector Haridwar and the decision is yet to be taken by the District Magistrate/Collector on the report dated 25- 8-2010. 2 The writ petition is premature. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to make a representation before the District Magistrate Haridwar or he may file objection against the impugned report. If the objection is filed or representation is made, as above, the District Magistrate shall pass appropriate order thereon after hearing the petitioner, in case decision is not already taken on the impugned report. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of finally. (B.S.Verma,J.) RCP