IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/B) No. 73 of 2009 Prem Singh Sanga ……Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. …Respondents. Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.M. Raturi, Advocate for the respondents. Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. J.S. Khehar, C.J, (Oral) 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the instant writ petition has been rendered infructuous, inasmuch as, the prayer made by the petitioner in the instant writ petition has since been satisfied. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents states that he has no objection to the disposal of the instant writ petition in terms of the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. 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.) 7.5.2010 Rathour