1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3799/1995 (Harish Chanrda Garg Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) Date of order :: 27.02.2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr.Harish Purohit, for the petitioner. Mr.N.M. Lodha, Addl. Advocate Genera. Heard learned counsel for the parties. In this case, on 18.01.2008, learned Dy. G.A. was directed to furnish affidavits of Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Personnel and, so also, Director, Local Self Government Department, Government of Rajasthan within a period of two weeks, explaining why the fixation of the petitioner was not made so far and how the petitioner's matter is pending even after superannuation and promotions having been granted to him. Today, learned Addl. Advocate General, while filing additional affidavit has brought to the notice of this Court that all the relief sought for by the petitioner has already been granted by the State of Rajathan way back in the year 2001, but some 2 how, this fact was not brought to the notice of this Court. However, it was the duty of counsel for the petitioner to inform this Court about the said fact but the same was not done by learned counsel for the petitioner. Thus, it is prayed that nothing survives in this writ petition, as relief sought for by the petitioner has already been granted to him. It is also submitted that the petitioner Harish Chandra Garg has died on 02.08.2003, which fact is also not brought on record by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is further submitted by learned Addl. Advocate General that the cost imposed by this Hon'ble Court may be made easy because there is no fault on the part of respondents only though reply has been filed after six years, but all the relief has been granted to the petitioner. In case the cost is imposed by Hon'ble Court, then, the petitioner is equally liable to pay the cost as he has not brought to the notice of the Court the aforesaid facts. After perusal of the reply filed by the respondents, it is clear that nothing survives in this case because relief sought for by the petitioner has already been granted by the respondents in the year 2001, which is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner. 3 A pointed quarry is made from the counsel for the petitioner why the aforesaid facts were not brought to the notice of the Court when the order dated 18.1.2008 was passed. In reply, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no contact with the petitioner prior to passing of earlier order. Therefore, in absence of any information, the aforesaid facts were not brought to the notice of this Court that the relief sought for by petitioner has already been granted and the petitioner has died in the year 2003. Upon the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is disposed of as having become infructuous. However, the order dated 18.1.2008 with regard to depositing cost of Rs.5,000/- by the respondents is modified and it is ordered that now the cost of Rs.5,000/- shall be paid half by learned counsel for the petitioner and half by the respondents, which shall be deposited with the Legal Aid Committee, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur within a period of two months from today. I have also perused the explanation filed by concerned clerks of the office in pursuance of the order dated 26.2.2008. Although there is lack of duty on the part of 4 concerned clerks of the Office but while accepting their explanation as the relief sought for by the petitioner has already been granted by the respondents, they are directed to be careful in future. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J. A.K. Chouhan/-