IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition PIL No. 916 of 2008 Trilochan Singh. .……… Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. .………. Respondents. Mr. K.S. Bora with Mr. M.K. Ray, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. P.C. Bisht, Brief Holder for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. T.A. Khan with Mr. B.D. Pande, Advocates for respondent No. 4. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. J.S. KHEHAR, C. J. (Oral) Mr. Farjan Ali (respondent No. 4) is present in Court in person. 2. The instant ‘Public Interest Litigation’ has been filed alleging, that respondent No. 4 often encroaches on the lane depicted in the joint report dated 31.03.2010. The instant order, therefore, should not be construed as adjudicating any rights of the parties, other than the issue of encroachment over the public lane. 3. Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate, on receiving instructions from Mr. Farjan Ali (respondent No. 4) states, that henceforth, respondent No. 4 shall not encroach on the road herein after, and definitely not on Fridays or other religious festivities. He further states, that respondent No. 4 is in the process of purchasing houses on the western side of the madrasa / mosque, depicted in the site plan appended to the report dated 31.03.2010, and that after respondent No. 4 purchases the same, there would be adequate space with respondent No. 4 to carry out all his activities. It is also submitted, that negotiations are already on for the aforesaid purchase, which are likely to fructify in the near future. 4. Learned counsel for the parties agree, that in view of the statement made on behalf of respondent No. 4, the instant writ petition has been rendered infructuous. 2 5. The instant writ petition is accordingly disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. Needless to mention, that respondent No. 4 shall be bound by the statement made to this Court on his behalf. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C. J.) 05.04.2010 05.04.2010 G