IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1067 of 2010 (M/S) Jitendra Rawat, S/O Surendra Singh Rawat, R/O Harbansvilla, Tea Estate Majri, District Dehradun, Uttarakhand. …Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and four others. … Respondents. Mr. V.S.Rathore, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. N.P.Shah, learned standing counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 4. Date June 30, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 6th May 2010 passed by respondent no.1 in favour of respondent no.5, as contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. Petitioner has also sought a writ of certiorari quashing the consequential work order dated 10th May 2010 passed by respondent no. 3 in favour of the respondent no. 5 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition). On the basis of instructions received from the State Government, learned Standing Counsel has informed the Court that the lease, which was granted in favour of Mr. Rakesh Kumar- respondent No. 5 has already been cancelled by the District Magistrate, Haridwar, by his order dated June 28, 2010, since Rule 72(1) of the Uttarakhand Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 2001 was not complied with. In view of the order dated 28-6-2010 of the Collector Haridwar, the writ petition has become infructuous at this stage. The writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. ( B.S.Verma, J. ) RCP