\ \ i9 PK; IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Wn't Petition No. 1356 of 2001 Petitioner Ku. Sarita 'I‘hakur, Daughter of Shri Sohanlal Thakur, resident of Purana Raipur Naka, Mahasamund (Chham'sgarh) Versus Respondent 1. The Collector, Mahasamund. 2. The Director Geologr 85 , Mining, Chhattisgarh, Raipur. 3. Somesh Dave son of Shn' J.S.Dave, lesident of Tn‘murti Colony, Mahasamund ('Chhatisgarh‘). Vijay Chandrakar son of Shri Badri Narayan Chandrakar, resident of Mahasamund. WRIT PE’I‘ITON UNDER ARTICLE 226/ 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDL’L (SB: Hon’ble Shrl Salish K. Agnihou‘i J.) Shri Yogesh Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Arvjnd Dubey, Panel Lawyer for the Iespondents No. 1 & 2. Shrl P. K. 'l‘ulsiyan, Advocate for the Iespondent No.3. ORDER (Passed on this 9th Day of January, 2009) 1. By this pen‘tion the petitioner impugns the order dated 29.6.2001 (AnneXuIe P] 4), whereby the OEcer on Special Duty Directorate, Geology and Mining, while setting aside the lease dated 95.2001, granted to the petitioner ibr a period from 14.5.2001 to 13.5.2006, remanded back the matter to the Collector for reconsideration. 2. This Court by interim order dated 9.8.2001 suspended the impugned order dated 29.6.2001. The lease period has already expired, therefore, at this stage considering the dispute \ involved in this petition, would be of academic interest as V nothing survives on facts tor adjudication. It is well settled that ifa case has become infructuous on the facts of the case and question mmajns to be decitied fbr academic puxpose, it is not necessaly to examme the case. In the matter ofBasheshar Nath Vs. Commissioner of lncome« tax, Delhi and Rnjasthan and anotherl, the Supreme Court observed as under : “12. .........We take the View that this Court should not make any pronouncement on any question which is not suictly necessauy for the disposal of the panicular case befom it. We, therefore, confine our attention to Art. 14 and proceed to discu$ the question on that footing.” 4. The Hon’ble Constitution Bench of the Supieme Court in the matter ofArnit Das Vs. State of What? observed as under:— “6. It is settled practice that this Court does not decidei matters which ate only of academic interest on the facts of a particular case. (See with advantage: Sanjeev Coke Mfg. Co. v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.3, R. s. Nayak v. A. R. Antulay4 and Dhartipakar Medan Lat Agaxwal v. Rajiv GandhiS.)”. 5. In View of the fotegoing, this petition is dismissed as having become inhuctuous. Interim order gmnted on 9.8.2001 stands diséhaiged. Consequently, MM)? No. 232/2001 is also dismissed. sui- 1 Satish K. Agnihotri ’ Judge " Than; W ‘{A.IR. 1959 5.C. I49}