IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 240 of 2005 (S/B) Mahendra Prasad. ..……… Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & another. ..………. Respondents. None for the petitioner. Mr. B.K. Gupta and Mr. H.M. Raturi, Advocates for the respondents. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. J.S. KHEHAR, C. J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the respondents state, that the petitioner in the instant writ petition, has impugned the order of his suspension. It is pointed out, that the instant writ petition has been rendered infructuous, on account of the fact, that the petitioner has since been reinstated into service. In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondents, the instant writ petition is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C. J.) 31.05.2010 31.05.2010 G