IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Review Application No. 858 of 2010 In Writ Petition (PIL) No. 799 of 2008 Himalayan Yuva Gramin Vikas Sanstha ...Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents. Present : Mr. L. P. Naithani, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. G.K. Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vinay Kumar, Standing Counsel (State of Uttarakhand) for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 6. Mr. M. S. Pal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Tarun P.S. Takuli & Aamir Malik, Advocate for respondent no.5. Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, CJ Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Barin Ghosh, C.J. (Oral) We have considered the averments made in the application for condonation of delay (CLMA No. 8518 of 2010) in preferring the Review Application, and being satisfied with the reasons furnished for delay in preferring the Review Application, we allow the application for condonation of delay. On the ground that despite the Court’s order, applicants were either not impleaded or they had no knowledge of pendency of the Writ Petition, the present Review Application has been filed stating that the order passed in the Writ Petition adversely affects the applicants. The order under review has been passed on a Public Interest Litigation, filed in the form of a Writ Petition, while finally concluding and disposing of the said litigation. The Public Interest Litigation addressed the 2 hazards, those were being created by stone crushing units. In order to ascertain what would be the safer mode of permitting establishment of stone crushing units, the Court appointed an Expert Committee. The Committee submitted a report and in the report made certain recommendations. Though the Court accepted those recommendations but did not issue any mandamus directing implementation thereof. On the other hand, the Court directed the State to formulate a policy and to notify its decision, after considering those recommendations. In the event, the State has accepted in its new policy such recommendations in toto, and if those are not otherwise permissible in terms of the competence of the State, it is open to be challenged. The Court having not directed implementation of those recommendations by the State, the applicants have not at all been prejudiced, in any manner whatsoever. Review at their instance of the order under review is, accordingly, not maintainable. The review petition is dismissed. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 5.5.2011 Avneet