HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Case:- WP(C) No.1705/2019 CM No.86/2020 CM No.6228/2020 CM No.6229/2020 CM No.3569/2019 J.S. Kanwar and Ors. …..Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. R P Sharma, Advocate Vs State of J&K & Ors. .….Respondent(s) Through: Ms. Nazia Fazal, Advocate vice Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG Mr. Dheeraj Nanda, Advocate Mr. Harshwardhan Gupta, Advocate Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE ORDER (08.07.2025) 1. Mr. Dheeraj Nanda, Advocate for the respondent No.7 M/S GTL makes a statement that the cause of action with respect to the institution of the present writ petition has been rendered infructuous for the reason being that the DG Set installed by the respondent No. 7 for the purpose of power supply to the telecommunication tower infrastructure to which the petitioners came to take exception has been removed and as on date there is no DG Set of any make or nature placed or installed at the site in relation to the telecommunication Serial No. 8 2 infrastructure of the respondent No. 7 and, therefore, the writ petition is rendered infructuous. 2. Mr. Dheeraj Nanda further submits that in case in future for the infrastructure as set up by the respondent No.7 at the site would require service of a DG Set power supply then requisite prior permissions would be first taken and availed by the respondent No.7 from all the concerned including the Pollution Control Board/Committee. 3. In the light of the statement so made by Mr. Dheeraj Nanda, Advocate for the respondent No. 7, this writ petition is disposed of as rendered infructuous with liberty to the petitioners that if they would have any fresh cause of action relatable in the context whereof the petitioners came forward with the present writ petition then the disposal of this writ petition as infructuous would not be prejudicing their right to come up with a fresh writ petition. (RAHUL BHARTI) JUDGE JAMMU 08.07.2025 Sneha