IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.4215 of 2009 with CWPs No. 4772, 4773, 4774, 4775, 4776, 4777, 4778, 4779, 4781, 4783, 4785 and 4786 of 2009. Decided on: March 19, 2010 [ For title : Please see below. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Judge. For the Petitioners : Mr. Naveen K. Bhardwaj, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) CWP No. 4215 of 2009 Tek Singh ….Petitioner Versus 1. State of H.P. and others ...Respondents CWP No. 4772 of 2009 Jai Singh ….Petitioner Versus 2. State of H.P. and others ...Respondents CWP No. 4773 of 2009 Tek Singh ….Petitioner 3. Versus 2 State of H.P. and others ...Respondents CWP No. 4774 of 2009 Ganga Ram ….Petitioner Versus 4. State of H.P. and others ...Respondents CWP No. 4775 of 2009 Dinu Ram ….Petitioner Versus 5. State of H.P. and others ...Respondents CWP No. 4776 of 2009 Devi Singh ….Petitioner Versus 6. State of H.P. and others ...Respondents CWP No. 4777 of 2009 Sher Singh ….Petitioner Versus 7. State of H.P. and others ...Respondents CWP No. 4778 of 2009 Mast Ram ….Petitioner Versus 8. State of H.P. and others ...Respondents CWP No. 4779 of 2009 Mohar Singh ….Petitioner Versus 9. State of H.P. and others ...Respondents 10. CWP No. 4781 of 2009 3 Ved Prakash ….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ...Respondents CWP No. 4783 of 2009 Achhar Singh ….Petitioner Versus 11. State of H.P. and others ...Respondents CWP No. 4785 of 2009 Kahan Singh ….Petitioner Versus 12. State of H.P. and others ...Respondents CWP No. 4786 of 2009 Kalu Ram ….Petitioner Versus 13. State of H.P. and others ...Respondents In view of the intervening development, the learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw these Writ Petitions since the grievance of the petitioners has been redressed. Permission granted and the Writ Petitions are dismissed as withdrawn, so also the pending applications. In CWP No. 4215 of 2009, we find that the petitioners have paid the Court fee of Rs. 4250.00. Subsequently, the writ petitioners No. 2 to 17 in that Writ Petition have been deleted from the party array and they are the individual petitioners in the other writ petitions, referred to above. In the above circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioners has prayed for refund of the court fee paid in respect of respondents No. 2 to 4 17. Since respondents No. 2 to 17 have already paid separate court fee, petitioners No. 2 to 17 are entitled to refund of the court fee. Ordered accordingly. Therefore, application being CMP No.9082 of 2009 is allowed and the petitioners shall be entitled to refund of court fee in accordance with the Rules. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice March 19, 2010 (Justice R.B. Misra), (rks) Judge.