IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 39 of 2006 State of Uttarakhand and others . .……… Appellants Versus Smt. Parvati Devi and others ……… Respondents Coram :- Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, A.C.J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. (Per:- Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, A.C.J.) Heard Shri P.C. Bist, the learned Brief Holder for the appellants and Shri K.N. Joshi, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1. The learned Brief Holder for the appellants categorically submitted that the present special appeal is confined to the second part of the direction given by the learned Single Judge, namely, “respondent No.3 is also directed to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 01/08/1998 regarding other claims of the petitioner within a month.” The learned Brief Holder for the appellants submitted that in view of Section 54 of the U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000 read with the eighth Schedule, the liability, if any, regarding payment of the claim of the petitioner would be that of the State of U.P. and not of the State of Uttarakhand. The Court only directed respondent No.3, namely, the Divisional Forest Officer, Tarai Western, Ramnagar to decide the representation and nothing beyond that. There was no difficulty for the said respondent to decide the representation. The State of Uttarakhand has unnecessarily filed this special appeal. The question whether the liability is of the State of Uttarakhand or of 2 the State of U.P. can easily be considered and decided by the said authority while deciding the representation of the writ petitioner. We are consequently not inclined to interfere in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. The special appeal is dismissed. (V.K. Bist, J.) (Tarun Agarwala, A.C.J.) 03.11.2009 Shiv/Bhaskar