iTTISf Petitloner nohar ,, R/6. Manish Singh Bhadari, S/o. SmghBhadari, agsd abQut37 Beside Agrasen Bhawan, Station Durg (CG). Versus 1) Municipa! Corporation, Durg, through its Com.missipner. 2) CommissiQner, Munictpal Corporatfon, 3) Heafth Officer, Municipal Coiporatieh, Durg(CG). (Writ Petltlon underArticle 226 ofConstitution of India) SB: 1-ion'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihofri, J. Present: Ar. Shashank Thakur, counsel for the petjtioner; 4r. Sourabh Sharma, counsel for the (Passedon this25 dayo(Noveml»r,2008) By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 29-8- (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent authortties, wheretw tfie (icence for running therestaurant and todge 'B' ctass, wascancelted. 2) The petitioner was granted ilcenceon 5-4-2007 (Annexure P/2) for running the restaurant and iodge 'B' ctass for a period from 1-4-2007 to 31-3-2008. During existence ofthe said licence, by order dated 29-8-20)7 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No.3, the said licence wag cancelted. 3) This court, having been prima facie satisfied, orderdated 29-8-2007 (Annexure P/1) by order dated 12- strength 6f the Satd interim order, the ticence fdr runnlng iodge 'B' etass ofthe petitioner has been continytng tit She impugned 2-10-2M7. Onthe ths rsstaurant and date. Even if the &-' Raju Detitioner succeeds, the ticence dated 5-4-2007 (AnnexureP/Z) eannot be extended beyond 31 -3-2008 asfrieperiod of contract woutd come to an end. Thus.nothing remainsforadjuciieation. The quastioninvolvecl in the petition is on!y of academic nature. 4) It is wei! settied principles of taw that the auestion of law on academic interest cannot be adjudicated upon for want of retevant facts. (See: Basheshar Nath Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Dethi and Rajasthan ahd another, Dhartipater Madan Lal Agrawal Vs. Rajiv Gandhi, Secretary, Ministry of Inyormation & Broaycasting, Govt. of Sndia and others ys. Crictet AssQciation of Ben^! and others , State of Man'purand ofters vs; Chandam Man'har Singh4, Amrit Das Vs. State of Bihar and Prakash Sihgh. Bada! and another Vs. State of PuRjab and oihers . 5) In viewofthe'f6regoing, iispetitionis dismissed as havlng become infructuous. Gansequentiy,1XNos. 1 and2ais6standd)smiSsed, Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ' (AIRI959SC149) 3(19S7(Supp)SCC93) 3 (1995) 2 SCC 161) 4 (1999) 7SCC 503} 5 (2001) 7 SCC 657) 6 (2007) 1 SCC 1 )