IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 64 OF 2005 SURYAKANT G. TORASKAR AND ANR. ... Petitioners Versus STATE OF GOA BY THE SECRETARY (PANCHAYATS) ... Respondents Mr. A. F. Diniz, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S. S. Kantak, Advocate General with Mr. A. Kamat, Addl. Govt. Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. V. P.Thali, Advocate for respondent No.2. Coram:- S.B. DESHMUKH & F. M. REIS, JJ. Date:- 1st December, 2010 P.C.:- We have heard learned Counsel Mr. A. F. Diniz appearing for the petitioners, learned Advocate General for respondent No.1 and Mr. V. P. Thali for respondent No.2. 2. The petitioners approached to this Court with the following prayers : (a) For a declaration that section 119 of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act 1993 and rule 3(4) of the Goa Panchayat and Zilla Panchayat (Election Procedure) Rules 1996 is un- constitutional, illegal and void, and be struck down. (b) For a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India commanding the Respondents to forthwith revoke/cancel/ withdraw the Notifications dated 14-1-2005 and 28-1-2005 published in Official Gazettes dated 14-1-2005 and 31-1-2005 respectively and all steps (if any) initiated thereby. (b) pending the hearing and final disposal of the petition for stay of operation of the said notifications dated 14-1-2005 and 28-1-2005 and also restraining the taking of any steps whatsoever pursuant to or in furtherance thereof or in relation thereto, (c) For ad interim ex-parte reliefs in terms of prayer (b) above. (d) For costs; and 3. This petition was filed on 11th February, 2005. The petitioners have raised a grievance that the respondents have issued a notification on 14.1.2005 in the official gazette specifying the division of North and South Goa Zilla Panchayats into various constituencies, the extent and limits of each constituency and reservation of seats therein. In substance, the grievance of the petitioners was pertaining to delimitation of the constituencies for the purpose of holding elections of Zilla Panchayats in North and South Goa Districts. The petitioners claim that they addressed a communication to the respondents, calling upon the respondents to cancel the notifications issued in view of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The contention of the petitioners was that before passing of the order for delimitation, objections from the general public ought to have been invited by respondent No.1. According to the petitioners, despite there being the communication, the respondents did not pay any heed and that is how the present writ petition was filed on 11th February, 2005 seeking the prayers which we have noticed in the foregoing paragraph. 4. This petition was before this Court on 22.2.2005. The matter was heard at length. The petition was reserved for Orders on 22nd February, 2005 and it was pronounced on 28th February, 2005. This Court, by the said order, refused interim relief sought for by the petitioners, however, liberty in favour of the petitioners to seek early hearing of the writ petition was granted. 5. Today, learned Advocate General Mr. S. S. Kantak and Advocate Mr. V.P. Thali who appear for the respondents, on instructions, made a statement that the elections to the Zilla Panchayats in the State were conducted in view of the said notifications. Their term also got over and fresh elections have also been held. In substance, according to them, this petition over the years, has become infructuous as fresh elections have also been held. We have heard Mr. Diniz, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners. 6. In view of the statements of the Counsel appearing for the parties, in our opinion, now the petition has become infructuous and accordingly stands dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. S.B. DESHMUKH, J. F. M. REIS, J. ssm.