1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1070 OF 2002 Ansari Sabiya Sultana Momin Mohammad Sammeruddin ...Petitioner VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents ..... Shri S.M.Godsay, advocate for the petitioner Shri S.K.Kadam, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 and 6 Shri S.T.Shelke, advocate for respondent no.3 Shri D.N.Suryawanshi, advocate for respondent no.4 Shri G.K.Thigle, advocate for respondent no.7 Respondent nos. 2 and 5 served ..... CORAM : S.B.DESHMUKH AND SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, JJ. DATED : 30TH SEPTEMBER , 2010 PER COURT : 1 None appears for the petitioner. 2 We heard Shri S.K.Kadam, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 and 6. 2 3 It appears that respondent no.4, returned candidate, had filled in nomination for the election of Councilorship of Municipal Council, Beed. After completion of election process, voting took place and respondent no.4 was declared elected. The petitioner participated in the election process. 4 According to the petitioner, on 20.12.2001 request was made to the Returning Officer for supply of the documents, however, the documents were not supplied to the petitioner by the Returning Officer. The petitioner also allegedly submitted a representation to the District Collector and Director of Municipal Administration, Pune, requesting reference of the social status of respondent no. 4 to respondent no. 6 Committee. The authorities did not listen to the request of the petitioner. 5 The grievance of the petitioner appears to be that respondent no.4 contested the election from the reserved seat. According to the petitioner, respondent no.4 does not belong to reserved category and he has no right to officiate as Municipal Councilor. Respondent no.4 is, in fact, a lady person. Elections had taken place for the period 2001 to 2005. Undeniably, said period has been passed over. 3 6 Affidavit in reply on behalf of the State is on record. It has been affirmed by Bhaskar Ramchandra Gaikwad, Sub-Divisional Officer, Beed. 7 In our opinion, petition has become infructuous by lapse of time. Without entering into merits, we are inclined to dismiss the petition as infructuous. 8 Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) (S.B.DESHMUKH, J.) dbm/wp1070.02