IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 142 of 2009 (S/B) Mohkam Singh. .……… Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & another. .………. Respondents Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.M. Raturi, Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1. Mr. Arvind Vashishth, Advocate for respondent No. 2. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. J.S. KHEHAR, C. J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the petitioner states, that the petitioner had approached this Court so as to assail the order dated 07.07.2009 (Annexure No. 7), vide which, the petitioner had been placed under suspension. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner has since been reinstated in service, and as such, the instant writ petition has been rendered infructuous. In view of the above, the instant writ petition is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C. J.) 17.02.2010 17.02.2010 G