IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 289 of 2004 (M/B) Smt. Rashmi Sharma, W/o Sri R.A. Sharma, M/S White Gold Agro Foods and Herbs, 78 Tyagi Road, Rest Camp, Dehradun. …….. Petitioner Versus U.P. Financial Corporation, 78 Rajpur Road, Dehradun, through its Regional Manager. …….. Respondent Mr. H.M. Bhatia, Advocate on behalf of Mr. B.P. Nautiyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Naresh Pant, Advocate for the respondent. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon. Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Hon. M.M. Ghildiyal, J. RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. (Oral) Mr. H.M. Bhatia, Advocate on behalf of Mr. B.P. Nautiyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Naresh Pant, Advocate for respondent U.P. Financial Corporation. 2. Petitioner Smt. Rashmi Sharma has filed this writ petition for the following reliefs: “i. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent not to realize from the petitioner amount of Rs. more than 8 lakhs against the term loan and seed capital and recover the amount of Rs. 8 lakhs as OTS in accordance with the rule and regulations under Central Act – 63 of 51. ii. Issue any other writ order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. iii. Award the cost of the petition to the petitioner.” 3. On 07.04.2004, following order was passed in the writ petition: 2 “Mr. B.P. Nautiyal, learned counsel for the petitioner is present and Mr. Naresh Pant, learned Advocate is present for the respondent. List after three weeks. Meanwhile, no coercive measures shall be taken against the petitioner and the proceedings initiated under Section 29 of SFC’s Act shall also not be initiated. Mr. Naresh Pant shall inform this Court on the next date regarding the one-time settlement between the parties at Rs. 8,50,000/- (Rupees Eight Lacs Fifty Thousand only).” 4. Mr. Naresh Pant, the learned counsel for respondent U.P. Financial Corporation has produced a photocopy of the letter dated 23.12.2005 sent by U.P. Financial Corporation to petitioner Smt. Rashmi Sharma conveying the acceptance of the offer of one Time Settlement submitted by the petitioner to the Corporation. 5. In view of the above development during the pendency of the writ petition, we are of the opinion that the writ petition, now, has become infructuous. 6. The writ petition, therefore, is dismissed as infructuous. (M.M. Ghildiyal, J.) (Rajeev Gupta, C.J.) 31.03.2006 31.03.2006 G