IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 589 (MS) of 2010 M/s Taj Royalty …Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record. Heard Ms. Menka Tripathi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. H.M. Raturi, the learned Standing Counsel for the State/ respondents no. 1 to 4 and Mr. A. K. Sharma, the learned counsel for the respondents no. 7 & 8. This Court vide order dated 2nd May 2011 had directed the petitioner to take fresh steps to serve upon respondent no. 5. The petitioner has taken steps and the office report indicates that the service is deemed to be served upon respondent no. 5. The State Government was also directed to serve a copy of the order of the Court dated 2nd May 2011 upon respondent no. 5 and was further directed to intimate the Court about such service. The learned standing counsel is clueless on this aspect. Since this Court is of the opinion that service is deemed to be served and no one has appeared on behalf of the respondent no. 5, in the light of decision of the Court dated 2nd May 2011 passed in Writ Petition No. 165 (MS) of 2011 the controversy involved being the same the writ petition is allowed. The permission granted by the State Government and the work order issued by the District Magistrate in favour of respondents no. 5,6,7 & 8 permitting them for mining operation are quashed. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 23.05.2011 VKG