IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 444 OF 2008 (MS) Jeevan Singh Chauhan …….Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. …Respondents. None appears for the petitioner. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for State of Uttarakhand. 14th July, 2009 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. List revised. Case called out twice. None appears on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner resides in Mussoorie in Uttarakhand. The grievance of the petitioner is that the District Magistrate and other authorities are not taking any action on the objections of the petitioner dated 7th January, 2008, which was regarding the wrong inclusion of certain names in the Electoral Roll of Ward NO. 3 (Rajmandi Ward). For this, the petitioner has filed present writ petition with the following prayers: “(I) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to decide the objections raised by the petitioner within the time fixed by the Hon’ble Court. (II) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of ad interim mandamus commanding the respondents to decide the objections raised by the petitioner prior to the finalization of the electoral rolls. (III) issue a writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (IV) Award the cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner.” 2 Now in the short counter affidavit filed by the State, it has been stated that the objections of the petitioner against inclusion of certain names have been considered by the authorities and 271 names from the Electoral Rolls pertaining to Ward No. 3 have been deleted, the grievance of the petitioner is thus satisfied. A statement has been made by the learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand that as the grievance of the petitioner has been redressed, the writ petition has become infructuous. On the basis of the statement of the learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel as well as the counter affidavit, it appears that the writ petition has become infructuous. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed as having become infructuous. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 14.7.2009 Rathour