Eggijibnar Shiv Kumar Mishra, 810. Jagdi$h gt Prasad Mishra, agari 52 vears i, Mahamantm’ of Natlonal bpcnge 7 £ 5 Worksrs Unlon R/o Pcnds Hou x E _ M1ss1on Poad Cnampa Dlstnct ,K § JanjgipChampawG). 1 Eé§§§l3§ Réspgwnts 1. PreSMtmt, industiial Court, Raipur i (CG). 2. Registmr, Track Unions, Raipur (CG). 3. Obsexver aim Assistani Labour Commissioner, Korba, District Korba ‘CGL . t . 4. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Sjo. Ramashray Prasad Singh, R/o. PIL Colony, Prakash ,{ndustn'as Ltd” Champa, Disaict £ax1jgir—Champa _ (CG). , _ ¥ a Rucirakmnar Pandéy, S/o. RS. v Pandey, R/o,. Baéhalo; Hostel 1 PraLash indu‘stries Ltd (Jhampa ‘ § ' V‘ District JanggnnChampa {( ‘G) ' 6. Vmesh Kumar, Sio Shn Puran ‘ Smgh Pmkash IndhsmFS C0lony, ‘ ’ V * Champa Dmuict Janjglr—Lhamya w {(Jr‘\ a 7. Arun Kumar hharma S/a Damodax '; Prasad bhaima [Wyhh Talab Llons Club Road Champa Dish-wt Janjgir § Fhampa (LC) ’ ‘ (W111: ?etition under Article 226 of the Cfonsfitution of Iiidia} s3: Hon’ble Mr. Satish‘ ihotrj, J. bréusenntw " ‘5“11 S P Kale,» counssl farth M Shnm A$h1sh Shnvastava, cows€1 Ior tile rsspondsnts NO 4 to / aaRAL (mama _ \L u 1 ‘ _ ‘ {Passed on wig-28th day om v st, 20033 * ‘ Learn/ml counsel appearing for the etitiohor submits that the petifioner is slot claiming any Iéh‘of in lhis petition as nothing ' suwiveS. V However, a quostionlof law asto Whether the Registrar, . . EGH $G¥RT 3F CHI’IAT’K‘IEGARH: Bjggg’g Wri1:_ Petition No. 2952_9_£2_Q9§ H g : : x fi‘raéies Union has power to appoint the absmvar 111 €1Ection of m6 Bifxim’bearers of tho Union. ‘ 2} Be thai at it may, it iS trite law that if a case has become Emfl§uctuous on tho facts of the caso anci quagion remains to be iieoidod for academic pumose, it is not necessary to examine the r 4 1 lease. (See Basheshar Nath vs. Commissioner of Income-tom Delhi and Rajasthan and anoiherl'. Dhan'ipakar Madan La? Agrawal vs. iRajiv Gandhi?, Secreiary, Minisiry of Ihfommh'on & Broadcasting, Gobi. of India‘ and others vs. Crickei Association of Bengai and §0thejrs3, State of Manipur ami others vs, Chandam Manihar Singhf. :Amii Das use Staie of Bihar5 and Prakash Singh Badai and another EvsJ Staie of PLmjclb anci others?) i3) g in View of the foregoing, this petition stands dismissed. No ; ’” Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge order asto costs. IAIR 1959 so 149 2 19s? (Supp) soc 93 3 (1995) 2 soc. 161 4 (1999; 7 soc 503 s (2001) 7 soc 657 6 (QHHW 1 §€1n 1 x