IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.100 of 2009 Ajay Rai @ Ajay Ray, Son of Sri Suresh Rai, Resident of Village Shani Chanda, P.O. Bhaluhi, P.S. Marhoura, District Saran at Chapra. --------- Respondent/Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Chapra (Saran). 4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Marhoura, Chapra (Saran). 5. The District Panchayat Raj Officer, Chapra (Saran). 6. The Block Development Officer-cum-Executive Officer, Marhoura, District Chapra (Saran). Respondents/Respondents 7. Hari Madho Sah, Son of Shri Shiv Nath Sah, Resident of Village and P.O. Bhawalpur, Block Marhoura, District Chapra (Saran). --------- Petitioner/Respondent ----------- For the Appellant :- Mr. S.B.K. Manglam, Adv. For the Respondent/Petitioner :- Mr. Ashok Kr. Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Manish Mishra, Adv. For the Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 :- Mr. A.K. Dwivedi, AC to GP 13 ---------- 8 22.03.2010 Heard Mr. S.B.K. Manglam, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Ashok Kumar Choudhary along with Mr. Manish Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent no.7 as also Mr. A.K. Dwivedi, learned AC to GP 13 for the respondent nos. 1 to 6. In this intra-court appeal, the assail is to the order dated 13.01.2009 passed by the learned single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 12492 of 2008, whereby, he had allowed the writ petition by setting aside the resolution of no 2 confidence motion whereby the respondent writ petitioner was removed from the post of Pramukh of Marhoura Panchayat Samiti. Learned single Judge after so holding has directed as follows:- “However, it is made clear that it would be open to the respondents to have a fresh date fixed for convening the special meeting for considering no confidence motion against the petitioner. Let the said date be fixed within a period of one week from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order by the Executive Officer of the Panchayat Samiti, who shall fix the date providing for one week clear notice as required by law.” Be it noted, the matter was listed on 27.1.2010 and, thereafter, on two occasions, there was a debate whether the voting had been properly done and the order of the learned single Judge is justified in law. In one hand, Mr. S.B.K. Manglam, learned counsel for the appellant submitted with tremendous astuteness that the order of the learned single Judge is absolutely fallacious, inasmuch as, the Pramukh had conceded to the assistance to be rendered to the members of the Samiti to cast their vote as they were illiterate. It is also urged by Mr. Manglam that by scanning of the conduct of the Pramukh, it would be evident that the 3 doctrine of waiver gets squarely attracted. Per contra, Mr. Choudhary, learned counsel for the respondent writ petitioner defending the order of the learned single Judge has submitted that the concept of waiver could not get attracted. Regard being had to the fact which relates to the voting pattern which has the facet of public policy and to the basic conception of public policy, doctrine of waiver is not attracted specially when the manner of voting has been laid down by a circular issued by the competent authority. The debate could have been interesting and in a way intellectually inspiring but towards the end of the submission, after wisdom dawned upon Mr. Choudhary, he submitted that the order of the learned single Judge has been carried out and the vote of no confidence has again be mooted against him and has become unsuccessful. The sixty-four thousand million dollar question that emerges for consideration whether despite the adroit submission canvassed by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court should advert to the issue in question. The answer would be an indubitable “no”. The courts are 4 not expected to address on academic issues. That would be much ado about nothing and therefore, we can dispose of the appeal without any ado by saying it has been rendered infructuous. We may hasten to clarify that by referring to the subsequent events, we have not given approval to the said vote of no confidence as it is open to challenge as per law. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. Rishi (Dipak Misra, CJ.) (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)