IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 6648 of 1987 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? -------------------------------------------------------------- SARDARGANJ MERCANTILE CO-OP BANK LTD Versus DISTRICT REGISTRAR -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR PM RAVAL for Petitioners MR DP JOSHI, AGP, for Respondent No. 1 MR SK JHAVERI for Respondent No. 2 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE Date of decision: 20/03/98 ORAL JUDGEMENT By virtue of the present petition, the petitioners have challenged validity of order dated 14th December 1987 passed by the District Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mehsana, whereby he had disqualified petitioner No.2 for a period of 3 years from being appointed as member of administrative committee of any co-operative bank. 2. The petition was admitted by this Court on 26th April 1988 and during pendency of the petition, by virtue of ad-interim relief granted in favour of the petitioners, implementation and execution of the impugned order had been stayed. The ad-interim relief granted on 16th December 1987 at the time when notice was issued had been continued from time to time and the said ad-interim relief has also continued till today. 3. Learned Advocate Shri K.S. Jhaveri appearing for respondent No.2 has submitted that by efflux of time the petition has become infructuous for the reason that term of petitioner No.2 has already come to an end. The period for which petitioner No.2 was disqualified has otherwise also come to an end and, therefore, disposal of the petition would also not come in way of the petitioners. 4. The petition is disposed of accordingly. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. ------ 4.