IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition P.I.L. No. 638 of 2008 Yogesh Pacholia. ..……… Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & another. ..………. Respondents Mr. S.N. Babulkar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anil Bisht, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.C. Bisht, Brief Holder for respondent No. 1. Ms. Beena Pandey, Standing Counsel for respondent No. 2. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. J.S. KHEHAR, C. J. (Oral) We have perused the report submitted by the Registrar General of this Court in furtherance of the directions issued on 23.11.2009. We are of the view that the report in question should be taken off the record of this petition and should be returned to the Registrar General. Accordingly, the Bench Secretary is directed to remove the report from the paper book and return it to the Registrar General. Insofar as the controversy raised in the main case (i.e. Writ Petition PIL No. 638 of 2008) is concerned, the same had been filed for construction of two bridges, one across river Bahalla and the other across river Naiyya. The Principal Secretary to the Government of Uttar Pradesh in the Public Works Department, in his affidavit, has affirmed that the aforesaid two bridges have since been constructed. Ms. Beena Pandey, Advocate, representing the State of Uttar Pradesh, affirms the same and states that even the finishing touches have since been completed and the same is operational for all types of traffic. In view of the above, we are satisfied that the instant writ petition has been rendered infructuous. The same is accordingly disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C. J.) 16.12.2009 16.12.2009 G