IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 586 of 2003 (M/S) Natha Singh S/o Mukhram Singh, R/o Village Belra Paragana & Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar. ……. Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal through Secretary, Revenue, Dehradun. 2. District Magistrate / District Director of consolidation, District Haridwar. 3. Director of Consolidation, State of Uttaranchal, Dehradun. 4. State of Uttar Pradesh, through Commissioner, Consolidation, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, …….. Respondents None for the petitioner. Mr. N.C. Gupta, Standing Counsel for respondents Nos. 1 to 3. None for respondent No. 4. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. RAJEEV GUPTA, C. J. (Oral) Petitioner’s counsel absent. Mr. N.C. Gupta, Standing Counsel for respondents Nos. 1 to 3. None for respondent No. 4. 2. As there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner, we are left with no other option but to dismiss the writ petition for want of prosecution. 3. The writ petition, therefore, is dismissed for want of prosecution. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) (Rajeev Gupta, C. J.) 06.07.2006 06.07.2006 A