^ o / -r IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Wr-it Pe6'tion NO. ^-8S-2_/ 2005 PETITION UNDER ART 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION 3 Petitioner / Non-Applicant Santoshdhar Diwan S/o Jwaladhar Diwan Age 54 Yrs R/o Vill. Hathbandh Teh. Simga Distt. Raipur VERSUS Respondent / /(. Dharmendra Shukla S/o Radhakishan Applicant /^. /^. Ravindra Soni 8/ o Swarupchand Soni /. ^y' ~ / : /^ .^., Samaylal S/o Banau y/W / No. 1 to 3 - R/o Vill. Hathbandh ^ ^^ ^'&-€... y/^7/ ;^/ 0:L.. R/o Vill. Hathbandh Teh. Simga Distt. Raipur /4. Election Officer / Presiding Officer, Up-Sarpanch Election, Vill. Hathbandh Teh. Simga Distt. Raipur ^/ ^:J^/ .^l.._-.iL^V^__.... __-. ^L HiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BiLASPUR PETITiONER Non-Applicant :WRiT PETiTiON N0. 4852 OF 2005 Santoshdhar Diwan Versus Dharmendra Shukla & Others RESPONDENT Appllcant (VVrit Petltion under Articie 227 ofthe Constitutlon of India) Slngle Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Raja Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.N.Roy, Pane! Lawyer for the State/respondent No.4. ORDER(ORAU (Passed on this 06th day of July, 2010) 1. By thls petition, the petitioner seeks to chailenge the iegajity and vaiidity of the order datsd 5/9/2005 passed by the Sub Dlvlsjonai Officer (Revenue), Bhatapara, Dlstrict Raipur in Panchayat Election Petition ,No. 26-B/151 year 2004-05 (Dharmendra Shukia Vs. Santoshdhar & Othef-s) whereby and whereunder, the eiection petition filed by the respondent No.1 herein has been ailowed. 2. Learned counsel appearlng for the petitioner submits that the petltioner is eiected Up-sarpanch of Gram Panchayat - Hatbandh. Accordlng to the petitioner, the election resuit was declared on the lottery basls by drawing a chit through one little boy. Being aggrleved by the eiection of the petitioner herein, the respondent No.1 herein preferred an election petition before the Sub Divisional Officer by raising various grounds. In the said petitlon, the petitioner fiied his reply. According to the iearned counse! for the petitloner, the Sub Divisional Officer without appreciating the reply submitted by the petitioner in its ietter and sprit allowed the election petition fiied by the respondent No.1 herein in an lijega! and arbitrary manner by passlng a non-speaking order. The term of eiectlon has come gw- HSS ^^ ^^-.—-^^. TY ^. 1 1: ^•^:-y 36) to an end and, there is no chalienge to the. eiection on the ground of corrupt practice. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadlngs and the documents appended thereto, it is evident that the eiection took p'iace on 4-2-2005 for a period of 5 years and the said term has already come to an end. Thus, the issue invoived herein has become academic. 4. it is a trite iaw that in case of electlon petition, if there is no chalienge on the ground of corrupt practice, on expiry of the term of electlon, the petition becomes infructuous and it is not necessary to go into the aiiegation and counter ailegation, to decide the academic question, when the petltlon has become Infructuous. 5. ln Dhartlpakar Madan Lai Agrawal v. Rajiv Gandhi1, the Supreme Court observed as under: "4.......1n this view grounds raised in the petition for setting aslde the election of the respondent have been rendered academic. Court should not undertake to decide an issue unless it is a living issue between the parties. if an issue is purei'y academic In that its decision one way or the other would have no impact on the position of the parties, it wouid be waste of public time to engage itself In deciding it. Lord Viscount Simon in his speech in the House of Lords In Sun Life Assursnce Co. of Canda v. Fe.ms observed: do not think that it would be a proper exercise of the authority vvhich this House possesses to hear appeais if it occupies tlme in this case in deciding an academic question, the answer to which cannot affect the respondent in any way. St is an essential quaiity of an appeal fit to be disposed of by his House that there shouid exist between the parties to a rnatter in actual controversy which the House 1 1987 (Supp) SCC 93 -:.:^^. i: •--y '^'^^' J undertakes to decide as a iiving Issue. These observations are reievant In exercising the appelSate jurisdiction of this Court." ^- Ashok 6. The Supreme Court, in Loknath Padhan v. Birendra Kumar Sahu2, while considering a eiectlon petition after dissolutlon of assembly, observed as under: "3.......We think there is great force in this preliminary contention urged on behalf of the respondent. It is a wei! settied practice recognised and foliowed in India as vveil as Engiand that a Court shouid not undertake to decide an jssue, unless it is a Jjylng issue between the parties. if an issue is pureiy academlc in that its decision is on way or the other would have no impact on the position of the parties it wouid be waste of pubiic time and indeed not proper exercise of authority for the Court to engage itself in deciding it....." 7. The Supreme Court in Kashi Nath Mishra v. Vikramaditya Pandey arsd Others3, dlsmissed the ejectlon petltion on dissoiution of assembly on the ground that the term of assembly in eiection expired by efflux of time. 8. Appiying the well settled principie of Isw, as aforestated to the facts of the case, wherein, chailenge in this petitlon was eiection of Upsarpanch which took place on 04/02/2005. The term of the eiection has come to end on 03/02/2005. Thus, no usefui purpose woujd be served even if the instant petition is aiiowed. 9. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the writ petition fajls and is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. ^_^- Sot.sb K.^'bot" Judge - AIR 1974 SC 505 3 (1998) 8 SCC 735