15.7.2008. Present: Mr.Deepak Kaushal, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.Vivek Thakur, Addl. Advocate General for Respondents No. 1 to 4. Mr.Suneet Goel, Advocate for respondent No.5. Mr.G.C.Gupta, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Ramakant Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.6. CWP.No.1252/2006. The petitioner herein has assailed the order dated 28th September, 2006 (Annexure:P-5), inter alia, on the ground that no consent of co-sharer has been obtained as per condition No.5 stipulated in the said order. In the affidavit filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 i.e. State of Himachal Pradesh and the Director Industries, it is clearly mentioned that the same stands withdrawn on 6th December, 2006 pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in CMP.No. 1529 of 2006 of CWP.No. 967 of 2006 titled as Sh.Chain Singh Vs. State of H.P. and others. This position is not disputed by Mr.G.C.Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of private respondent No.6. However, from the record it appears that the State Government has subsequently issued working permission. Such permissions have not been assailed by the petitioner in the present writ petition. For the aforesaid reasons, in my view, the present writ petition has become infructuous and as such the contentions raised by the parties herein are not being adjudicated upon. It would be open for the petitioner to assail the fresh permissions so granted by the State, if so advised, before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. In view of the aforesaid observation, the present writ petition is disposed of as having become infructuous. CMP.No. 1949/2006. Infructuous. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. July 15, 2008(R)