IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 300 OF 2003 (SS) Constable Ram Singh ……Petitioner. Versus State of Uttaranchal and another. ..Respondents. Mr. S.K. Mandal, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Heard Mr. S.K. Mandal, Advocate for petitioner and Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for State of Uttarakhand. A counter affidavit has been filed by the State along with a delay condonation application. The grounds shown for delay in filing the counter affidavit appear to be bonafide. Delay in filing the counter affidavit is condoned. Delay condonation application (CLMA No. 8940 of 2009) is allowed. Counter affidavit is placed on record. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the suspension order dated 12th April, 2003. However, in the counter affidavit, it has been stated that the suspension order dated 12th April, 2003 (Annexure -1 to the writ petition) has been revoked vide order dated 31st July, 2003, hence, cause of action in the writ petition no more survives and the writ petition has become infructuous. The writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuos. No order as to costs. Consigned to records. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 21.10.2009 Rathour