IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.841 of 2001 Decided on: May 4, 2011. Oasis Power Project Pvt. Ltd. …….Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. …….Respondents. _________________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. For the petitioner : Mr.Ashok Thakur, vice Mr.Rajiv Jiwan, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr.J.K. Verma, Dy.A.G., for respondent No.1. Mr.Dinesh Bhanot, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Mr.Surender Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) Writ petition is filed with the following prayer: “a) That the cancellation letter dated 18.05.2001 (Annexure P-10) may kindly be declared null and void and the same may kindly be quashed and the respondents may kindly be directed to finalise the site already decided by them for installation of Hydel Project.” 2. At paragraph 7 of the reply filed by respondents No.1 and 2, it is stated as follows: “That the contents of the para are wrong and hence denied. The firm was to sign Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) only after the provisional allotment was confirmed taking into account report of the joint inspection team. It is further pointed out that no assurance was given to the petitioner by the replying respondent for processing of the Memorandum of Understanding in the first week of January 2001. All such cases were to be decided in one go at the appropriate time. The petitioner has been informed by the respondent No.2 on 28.02.2001 that it may wait for the confirmation of the provisional allotment. The allotment would be 2 confirmed on the basis of joint inspection report so that the overlapping of the project could be avoided. Palchan site which was identified by the petitioner was found overlapping with the Beas Kund project site since both the projects could not be executed at the same location using the same stream of water therefore there was no alternative except to cancel the provisional allotment of the petitioner.” The other factual details are also furnished in the reply. 3. The learned Deputy Advocate General submits that there have also been intervening developments pertaining also to the policy regarding allotment. There was a consensus. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of without prejudice to the liberty to the petitioner to approach the Government in the light of the developments, which have taken place in the meanwhile. 4. In view of the final disposal of the writ petition, the pending application(s) also stand disposed of. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice May 4, 2011 (Justice V.K. Ahuja), (mlg/tilak) Judge.