THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No :13090 of 2007 Date: 24.6.2010 Between: P.M.R. Education Society and another. ..... PETITIONERS AND The Regional Director, Southern Region,Bangalore and others.. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. S. Girmoji Rao Counsel for Respondent No.1 : None Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 to 5: A.G.P for School Education The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No :13090 of 2007 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not allotting students to second petitioner-college for the academic year 2006-07 as illegal and arbitrary. From a perusal of the averments contained in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is evident that the petitioners have questioned non-allotment of students to the second petitioner-college for the academic year 2006-07. This Court, by order dated 22.6.2007, granted interim direction to the respondents to allot students. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as the said interim order was not complied with, the petitioners filed C.C. No. 940 of 2007 and that the said case was closed giving liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh contempt case subject to the result of the vacate stay petition, which was already filed by the respondents by then. At the hearing, though the learned counsel for the petitioners sought to advance his contentions on merits, I am of the view that as the academic year for which the writ petition was filed was already over, the issues raised in the writ petition have become purely academic. The law is well settled that the Courts will not decide the issues where the cause does not survive and the questions raised have become academic. (See: (1) R.S.Nayak vs. A.R. Antulay (1984)(2) SCC 183, and (2) Ramdas Athawale (5) vs. Union of India ( (2010) 4 SCC 1). However, the learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that the respondents have committed contempt. In my opinion, if the respondents are guilty of violation of the interim order granted by this Court, the petitioners shall be free to file a fresh contempt case and dismissal of this writ petition would not come in their way in pursuing the contempt case. Subject to the liberty given as above, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. __________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY,J DATE: 24th June, 2010 pnb