1 22 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5352/2006. Bikaner Urban Co-operative Bank Limited Vs. State & Ors. Date of Order :: 24th July 2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. J.L. Purohit, for the petitioner. Mr. K.L. Thakur, AAG, for the respondents Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. R.N. Upadhayay, for the respondent No.4. ..... BY THE COURT: The matter has been placed on board for orders on the application (IA No. 4622/2008) as moved by the respondents with the prayer that the interim order as passed in this matter on 19.09.2006 be vacated. By way of the order dated 19.09.2006 this Court, while issuing notices in the writ petition, directed that until further orders, Registrar, Co-operatives will not appoint an Administrator on the advise of the Reserve Bank. Perusal of the record makes out that after passing of the interim order dated 19.09.2006, this writ petition was admitted for consideration on 11.01.2007 for nobody appearing for the respondents; however, thereafter, the matter came up for consideration of an application filed under Article 226 (3) of the Constitution of India and the interim order was extended on 30.05.2007 and then, on 03.07.2007, this Court, after hearing the parties, rejected such application. Thus, in effect, the 2 prayer for vacating the interim order stands rejected per the force of the order dated 03.07.2007. The application (IA No. 4622/2008) as moved on behalf of the respondents for vacating the interim order, in the aforesaid circumstances, could only be treated as incompetent. However, a look at the subject-matter of this writ petition makes out that the petitioner has prayed for the relief that the respondents may be restrained from appointing Administrator on the petitioner's society pending decision of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2363/2006. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid CWP No. 2363/2006 has already been decided by this Court on 03.11.2006. Having regard to the prayer as made in this writ petition and the indisputable position that the said CWP No. 2363/2006 has already been decided, this Court is clearly of opinion that the present writ petition is rendered redundant and cannot be said to be carrying a subsisting cause of action. In the aforesaid view of the matter, even when no orders are required on the application (IA No. 4622/2008), this writ petition is required to be, and is, dismissed as redundant. No costs. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. Mohan/