IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA: CWP.No.472/1999. Date of Decision :3.5.2007... Shamsher Singh Dod. …Petitioner. Versus: H.P.State Forect Corporation and others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr.Surinder Sharma, Advocate. For Respondents 1to 3. Mr.N.K.Sood, Advocate. For Respondent No.4 Mr.Bimal Gupta, Advocate. For Respondents 5 & 6 Mr.C.B.Singh. Dy.Advocate General. Sanjay Karol, J (Oral). In terms of order dated 29th May, 2006 , the Principal Secretary (Forests) has filed an affidavit dated 6th July, 2006 which is on record. After perusing the same, I see no reason as to why the writ petition should be kept pending. There is proper justification for taking action on the administrative side. In terms of order dated 6th December, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 1999, it was clarified that the writ petition with regard to the cause of action had become infructuous qua the petitioner. However, the same was kept pending only to seek explanation from the concerned officials. Since the affidavit has already been placed on record, the writ petition is disposed of, as such. (Sanjay karol), Judge. May 3, 2007(R)