IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA C.Rev. (T) No. 90 of 2008 Decided on: 29.10.2010 Anjana Maheshwari …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1. No For the petitioner : Mr. B.B. Vaid, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. _______________________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral) : The only direction issued by the learned erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal was that till the decision of the representation, the operation of Annexure A-2 qua the petitioner shall be stayed. The private respondent arrayed in OA No. 1068 of 2007 has sought review of the petition. 2. It can safely be presumed that by now the representation might have been decided. Consequently, the present petition is rendered infructuous and the same is dismissed having become infructuous. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge October 29, 2010 (K. Attri) 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No