HIGH COURT OF‘ CHHA’ITISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Pctition (C) No. 2721 of2009 1; WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226Z 227 OF THE ‘ CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. (SB: Hon’ble Sim Sam‘sh K. Agnihot'ni J.) Shn' Bhupendra Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri M. P. S. Bhatia, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the respondents No.1& 2. Shri Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate for the respondent No: 3. ORDER (Oral) (Passed on this 28th day of July, 2009) Heard. l. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 13.5.2009 (Annexure P/ 1), passed by the Additional‘Collector, Ambikapur, District — Sarguja in Panchayat Revenue Case No. 7/A—89/O8—09 (Ujit Ram Vs. State of Chhattisgarh). / i 2. Brief facts, in nutshell, are that on 16th May 2008, the petitioner (Koushal Prasad Rajwade), who was Up—Saipanch of Gram Panchayat Koteya, Tahsil Pratappur, District Surguja, . submitted a notice under Rule 3 (1) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha Up—Sarpanch, Janpad Panchayat Tatha Zila Panohayat Ke President Tatha Vice—President Ke Virudh Avishwas Prastav) Niyam, 1994 (for ; r ” Petitioner Koushal Prasad Rajwade, S/o Bachcha Prasad Rajwade, agcd about 36 y€ars, Up- Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Koteya, R/o Village — Koteya, Tehsil and RS. Pratappur, District Surguja (C.G.) Versus Respondents 1. . State of Chhattisgarh, through Sub Divisional Oflcer Prafappur, District Surguja (C.G.) 2. Presiding Of&ce1‘, Nayab Tehsildar, Tehsil . Praiappur, District Surguja (C.G.) 3. Ujit Ram, Sfo Nohri, Saxpanch (EX) Gram Panchayat Koteya, R/o village Koteya, Tehsil Pratappur, District Surguja (C.G.) short ‘the Rules, 1994) for bringing ‘no—confldence’ motion against the Sarpanch/respondent No.3 (Ujit Ram), before the Sub Divisional Oiflcer (Revenue), Pratappur. The Sub Divisional Ofiicer by order dated 16.5.2008 (Annexure P/ 2), registered the case and recorded the statements of the petitioner as well as 12 other Panchas, who had signed on the notice. Finding substance in the notice, Shri H. S. Dhruv, Naib Tehsildar, Pratappur was appointed as Incharge Omcer to preside over the meeting of no-coni‘idence motion. It was directed to issue notice to all the Panchas through Secretary of the Gram Panchayat, to remain present in Panchayat Bhawan on 29.5.2008. The respondent No.3, against whom the purported no-confldence motion was carried, made a reference under Section 21(4) of the Act, 1993, challenging the validity of the order dated 16.5.2008, which was registered as Panchayat Revision Case No. 7/A-89/08—09 before the Additional Collector, Ambikapur, District Surguja. During the course of argument, it was informed at the bar by learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 that subsequently, a second no—confidence motion was initiated and the proceedings/of no«conf1dence motion has taken place on / 15.6.2009. Thus this petition has become infmctuous. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner does not controvert the above submission made by learned counsel appearing for the respondent No3. By the impugned order dated 13.5.2009 the earlier no—conhdence motion was held to be illegal. During the pendency of this petition the second no—confrdence motion was carried out. Thus, at this stage it is not necessary to go into the men'ts of the case, as the petition has become inhuctuous so far as the first no—confldence motion dated 29.5.2008 is concemed, puxsuant t0 the initiation of the second no—conhdence motion. There is no challenge to the second Inc-confidence motion. It is trite law that canying of subsequent no‘confldence motion would entail any decision on earlier no—confldence motion as academic. This Court, in Writ Petition (C) No. 2716 of 2008 (Udho Ram Verma Vs. State of Chhattisgarh 8t. others), relying on various decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, held as under:- “23. A common thread running through dicta laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions above cited is that the Court should not decide a question, which has become academic except in special cases depending upon the facts of case, like a constitutional amendment which has been brought into operation and permits the violation of certain freedoms through laws passed for certain purposes or other special facts depending on the issue involved in the case. In the present case, the issue does not involve any constitutional interpretation or any other‘special facts.” The Writ petition is accordingly disposed of as having become infructuous. No order asto costs. 1} , t 7, hi} ' Sd/- A’C‘R ih Satish K. Agnotri Judge Thakur Q