IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (PIL) No. 68 of 2011 Anuj Joshi and another ...…………. Petitioners Versus Union of India and others ....…………. Respondents Mr. Bharat Jhunjhunwala, applicant / petitioner No. 2 in person. Ms. Anjali Bhargava, Central Govt. Counsel for respondent No. 1. Mr. Vinay Kumar, Standing Counsel for the State / respondent No. 2. Mr. D.S. Patni, Advocate for respondent No. 3. Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C. J. Hon’ble U.C. Dhyani, J. Review and Recall Application No. 950 of 2011 Delay Condonation Application No. 13123 of 2011 The review application is belated, and accordingly, an application has been filed for condonation of delay in preferring the review application. There is no objection to the application for condonation of delay in preferring the review. We have also considered the averments made in the application, and being satisfied therewith, we allow the said application. In the instant review application, the writ petitioner is seeking an order restraining the respondents from making any further construction on the ground that the respondents, or some of them, have preferred a Special Leave Petition against the order under review, and accordingly, the court’s intention that the public hearing will be held at an early date and the 2 matter will be sorted out at an early date, is vitiated. That appears to be no ground for review. If the respondents, or some of them, are aggrieved by the order under review, and if they have a right to prefer a Special Leave Petition, and if they have exercised such right, because such right has been exercised, the court cannot review its order. The application is dismissed. (U.C. Dhyani, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 15.12.2011 Negi