HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT B1LASFUR WRIT .PETITION (C) N».5712 of2008 PETITIONER : Chliattisgarh State; Haj Committee, Thi-ough its Chairman, Dr. Salim RaJ, S/o Shri Abdul Hakim Raj, aged about 38 years, Chhattisgarh State Haj Coiiimittee, behind Rang Mandir, Cliliotapai'a, Raipur, District Raipur (CG), R/o E-487, Near Nootan Rice Mill, Samta Colony, Raipur, District Raipur (CG). VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of External Aflairs, South Block, New Delhi. 2. Haj Committee of India, through its Chief Executive Officer, Haj House 7-A, M.R.A. Marg (Palton Road), Mumbai (Maharashtra). \VRIT PETmON LTNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF TEffi CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shiti Satish K. Agmhotri. J. Present: Shri Adil Minhaj, Advocate for the petitioner. SlmKashifShakeel, AdvocatefortherespondentNo. 1. QRALQRUER (Passed on 4th day ofDecember, 2008) 1. With the consent ofthe parties, the matter is taken up fbr hearing fmally. 2. This petition is directed agamst allotment of additional quota to the State of Chhattisgarh to Haj pilgrims for the Haj of2008. 3. Leamed counset appearmg for the petitioner submits that the quota has y been allotted and now nothing remains for allotment so far as Haj of 2008 is concemed. 4. The petitioner questions flie metiiod of allocation of seats to various states and the right ofthe petitioner to additional quota for Haj still remains to be decided, as accordmg to the petitioner, the criteria adopted by the respondents is not in accordance with guidelmes for Haj-1429 (H)-2008 aiid the present process is violative of guidelmes. Sahu 5. Be that as it may, since the guidelines are only for Haj of 2008 which has already been exercised, thus, the question involved herem has become academic. 6. It is well settled principles oflaw that the question which is ofacademic interest, for want of available facts, need not be decided in exercise of juri^diction under Article 226 ofthe Coiistitution of India (See Basheshar Nath Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi and Rajsthan and another , Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agrawal Vs. Rajiv Gandhi , Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Govt. of India and others Vs. Cricket ^sociation of Bengal and others , State of Manipur and others Vs. Chandam Manihar Singh4, Amrit Das Vs. State of Bihar5 and Prakash Singh Badal and another Vs. State ofPunjab andothers . The petitioner may raise the issue, ifit survives, next year inthe appropriate case. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 1AIR 1959 SC 149 21987 (Supp) SCC 93 31995(2)8cc 161 4 1999 (7) SC-C 503 5 2001 (7) SCC 657 6 2007 (1) SCC 1