IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (PIL) No. 128 of 2009 Munna Singh …Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. …Respondents. Mr. Pawan Mishra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.M. Raturi, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 3. None for respondent no. 4. Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. J.S. Khehar, C.J, (Oral) 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner states, that a major portion of the Play Ground has already been constructed, and as such, the instant writ petition has been rendered infructous. 2. 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.) 4.6.2010 Rathour