HIGH COURT OE CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WritPetitionNo. 1997 of2004 RESPONDENTS ^ PETITIONER : MohanlalKhaiidelwal,agedabout59years,sonoflate Shri Ramjee Lal Khandelwal, Advocate, Resident of G.E. Road, Rajnandgaon (CG). VERSUS 1. The State of CMiattisgarh, through : The Principal Secretary, Department of Law and Legislative Affairs, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG). 2. Umakant Bharadwaj, aged about 45 years, son of Shri Kedamath Bharadwaj, Advocate, Resident of Kailash Nagar, Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh). (WRTT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTH'UTION OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Aemhotri. J.^ Present : Shri P.K.C. Tiwari, Sr. Advocate with Shri Shashi Bhushan, Advocate forthepetitioner. * Shri Vinay Harit, Dy. Advocate General for the State. Shri Anup Majumdar, Advocate for the respondent No. 2. ^? ORALORDER (Passed on 26"' day ofFebruary, 2009) With the consent ofthe parties, the matter is taken up for hearing fuially. 1. Leamed eounsel appearing for the petitioner submits that earlier by order dated 13.10.2000 (Aimexure P/2) the petitioner was appointed as Special Public prosecutor for Rajnandgaon district for a period of three years. Therefore, fhe petitioner ought to have been given continuation on the said post. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 09.07.2004 (Annexure P/l) whereby, the respondent No. 2 (Shri Umakant Bhardwaj) ''. ' .'-... -/•-:''-' •was appointed as Speeial Publie prosecutor for Rajnandgaon district for the period till 31.07.2005. Since the period ofappointment ofjhe respondent No. 2 has ah-eady come to an end, therefore, nothine survives in tfais petition for adjudication. The question, as to whether the petitioner is Saliu y- entitled to continuation after the term of appointment has to come an end, has become academic now. 3. It is a trite law that if a case has become ittfructuous on the facts and question remains to be decided for academie purpose only, it is not necessary to examine the question, leaving question oflawas open. In the matter of Basheshar Nath Vs. Coimmssloner of Licome-tax, DeUri and Rajasthan and another , the Supreme Court observed as under : "12. .........We take the view that this Court should not make any pronouncement on any question which is not strictly necessary for the disposal of the particular case before it. We, therefore, confine our attention to Art. 14 andproceedto discussthe question on that footing." 4. Further, the same ratio has been reiterated and afGrmed in the matter of Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agrawal Vs. Rajiv Gandhi, Secretary, Ministry of Irifoniiation & Broadeasting, Govt. of India and Others Vs. Cricket 4: Association of Bengal and Others , State of Manipur and Others Vs. Chandam Manihar Singh , Amit Das Vs. State ofBihar and Prakash Singh Badal and another Vs. State ofPunjab and Others . 5. In view ofthe foregoing, this petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. 6. Consequently, M(W)P No. 1804/04, application for grant of mterim relief, stands disposed of. — Sd/- Satish IC. Agnihotri Judge l.AIR 1959 SC 149 2. 1987 (Supp) SCC 93 3. 1995 (2) SCC 161 4. 1999 (7) SCC 503 5. 2001 (7) SCC 657 6. 2007 (1) SCC 1 'y-i Si»..& .. -'- ..T-Sii*° .^;i;;-^=^''"^!'-£-yn.-^t—7 ^t.'i.^^L-Aj^'i^'te: