IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (PIL) No. 45 of 2009 Mr. Bharat Bhushan Mittal …Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and another. …Respondents. Mr. A. Rab, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.M. Raturi, Advocate for the respondents. Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. J.S. Khehar, C.J, (Oral) Learned counsel for the petitioner states that after the issuance of the notification dated 15.6.2009, vide which Section 3(2) of the Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal Act, 1976 was amended, the instant writ petition came to be rendered infructuous. In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the instant writ petition is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C.J.) 30.3.2010 Rathour