W.P. No. 629 (S/S)04: Hon’ble M.M. Ghildiyal, J. Heard Sri Manoj Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for State/respondents. Counsel for the parties have submitted that the controversy raised by means of this writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court delivered on 19.11.2005 passed in writ petition no. 1150 (ss)2004 (Prashant Bahuguna vs. State of Uttaranchal and ors.), as such, the present writ petition may be decided on the same terms and observations expressed in the aforesaid judgment. In view of the aforesaid statement made by the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is finally disposed of on the same terms and observations made in writ petition no. 1150 (ss) 2004 (Prashant Bahuguna vs. State of Uttaranchal and ors.), delivered on 19.11.2005. 15.12.2005 NCM: (M.M. Ghildiyal, J.)