IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1479 (S/S) of 2003 Madan Sain. …………Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. ……… Respondents. (2) Writ Petition No. 643 (S/S) of 2004 Vinod Kumar. …………Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. ……… Respondents. (3) Writ Petition No. 644 (S/S) of 2004 K.P. Singh. …………Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. ……… Respondents. (4) Writ Petition No. 661 (S/S) of 2004 Virendra Singh. …………Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. ……… Respondents. (5) Writ Petition No. 838 (S/S) of 2005 Jai Pal Singh Yadav. …………Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. ……… Respondents. (6) Writ Petition No. 856 (S/S) of 2005 Rama Shankar. …………Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. ……… Respondents. (7) Writ Petition No. 868 (S/S) of 2005 Shishu Pal Singh. …………Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. ……… Respondents. AND (8) Writ Petition No. 872 (S/S) of 2005 Brijnandan Prajapati. …………Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. ……… Respondents. Sri Gopal Narain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri H.M. Raturi, learned counsel for State of Uttarakhand. Sri Rakesh Thapliyal, learned counsel for Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan. Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J All these writ petitions relating to option of petitioners either for State of Uttarakhand or for State of U.P. Under U.P. Re-organization Act a Committee has been constituted to reconsider the option for allocation. Therefore, all the petitioners are relegated to make representation before the aforesaid Committee and the Committee shall take decision in accordance with norms fixed for allocation. All the writ petitions are disposed of finally. Till the decision is taken by the Committee on the representations of the petitioners, status quo shall be maintained. (P.C. Verma, J) 26.06.2008 SKS