HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1672 of 2009 (M/S) Richard Wheeler …. Petitioner .. Versus Uttarakhand Power Corporation & others … Respondents Mr. Anil Kumar Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.D. Upadhyay, Advocate for the respondents. 30th November, 2009 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the Court today which is taken on record. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner as well as Mr. B.D. Upadhyay, Advocate for the respondents. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition with the prayer that suitable direction be given to the respondent namely the Uttarakhand Power Corporation to give a permanent electricity connection to the petitioner. In this case an interim order was passed by this Court on 25.9.2009 whereby it was directed that the power corporation shall take a decision on the pending matter of the petitioner and grant a new low tension/LT connection to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today. Learned counsel for the power corporation Sri B.D. Upadhyay states that in view of the interim order dated 25.9.2009 a decision has already been taken and a new low tension/LT connection has been granted to the petitioner. On these facts, in the normal course this matter should have been closed. However, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Anil Kumar Joshi states in his rejoinder affidavit that the present connection which has been granted to the petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition is in fact only a 2 temporary connection though what he needs is a permanent connection. All the same, a statement has been made by Sri B.D. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the power corporation that this temporary connection will shortly become a permanent connection within a period of three weeks from today. On this assurance given by Sri B.D. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the power corporation the cause of action of the present writ petition no more survives. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays that he may be permitted to withdraw the petition. The writ petition is hence dismissed as withdrawn. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 30.11.2009 Avneet