IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 387 of 2010. Galaxy Advertisers through its Proprietor Rishi Sachdeva, R/O 7 Yog Asharam Devpura Haridwar. … Petitioner. Vs. 1. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Tourism, Dehradun. 2. Mela Adhikari Kumbh Mela, Haridwar. …Respondents. Date March 23, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Stay Application No. 1576 of 2010) Heard Mr. Arvind Vashit, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.P.Upadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to take steps for completing his part of contract dated 11-2-2010 by making the advertised space available to the petitioner for installing/erecting hoardings, I.H.P. and Unipoles and to remove structures of unauthorized vendors having display of Sadhu Baba’s/Akharas/Ashrams and other unauthorized clients of other advertising agencies. According to the petitioner, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition No. 22 of 2010(M/S) Galaxy Advertisers Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others before this Court. This Court passed an order dated 10-2-2010 and directed the petitioner to deposit 25% of the total offered bid of Rs. 55 lacs, i.e. Rs. 13,75,000/- before the respondent no.2. The total amount was to be deposited in four instalments. The petitioner deposited the first instalment within the period as directed by this Court and an agreement dated 11-2-2010 between respondent no. 2 and the petitioner. The second instalment was deposited by the petitioner on 5-3-2010. 2 The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the deposits made by the petitioner, the respondents did not take steps for making the advertisement space available to the petitioner and no concrete steps were taken for hoardings and I.H.P. No action has been taken by the respondent-authorities to remove the unauthorisedly installed hoardings. In the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has already made several representations to the respondent no.2. The last representation was made by the petitioner on 17-3-2010 (Annexure-8 to the petition) but no decision was taken thereon. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that a direction be given to the respondent no.2 to decide the representation of the petitioner within a time frame and the petition be disposed of finally. Prayer is innocuous. In the above facts and circumstances, the respondent no. 2 is directed to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 17-3- 2010 (Annexure-8 to the petition) by a speaking order within a period of ten days from the date of production of certified copy of this order. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of finally. All pending applications also stand disposed of. (B.S.Verma,J.) RCP 3