x1” (ix/h ‘VBG’ é ® IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR(CHHATTISGARH) WRIT PETmON (C) NogRRB /20H PETITIONER1 RESPONDENTS / Premlal B0nshilal about 62 yeors' Chowk, Word No. 5, ViHOge and Post Kurud, District — Dhamtari V (C.G.) (Member of Vrihoh‘o Krishi Credit Co—operotive Society Limited, KurUd). VERSUS K t. The State of C‘G. Through —.The Secretory, Co- operative Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) The Registrar, Co—operative Societies, Vivekanand Nagar, Pension Bada Chowk, Raipur, (C.G.) W WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF lNDlA. Chandrdkar, S/o Chandrakar, aged R/o Bajrang HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) No. 5223 OF 2011 P ETITIONER Premlal Chandrakar Versus RESPONDENTS The State of C.G. & Another (Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri S.C.Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State. Dr. N.K.Shukia, Senior Advocate with Ms. Ritu Mishra, Advocate for the Caveator. ORDER (Passed on this 26‘“ day of September, 201 1) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 22.07.2011, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, which was passed on the representation made by the petitioner dated 28.06.2011 (Annexure P-3). According to Shri Verma, the representation was made pursuant to the order dated 18.07.2011 passed in W.P.(C) No.3830/2011 (Premlal Chandrakar v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others). The petitioner impugns the order dated 22.07.2011, wherein, it is stated that the relaxation can be granted to the Cooperative Socieites under memo dated 31.03.2008. However, the same cannot be done on regular basis in arbitrary and discriminatory manner. The petitioner, without impleading the society, which have been granted relaxation, which, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner are contrary to the statutory provisions, has filed this petition to question the authority of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies. It is well settled principles of law that no question of law can be decided for academic purpose only, fof want of specific and particular facts. '3. Be that as it may, even if the substantial question of law is involved, it is well settled principle of law that if on the facts of the case the petition has become infructuous, the academic question cannot be decided by the Court and the Court sould refrain from entertaining such petitions. (See Basheshar Nafh vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, [Delhi and Rajasthan and anotherl, Dhartipakar l 71'AIR 1959 SC 149 . / 2 \ \ Madan Lal Agrawal vs. Rajiv Gandhiz, Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Govt. of India and others vs. CricketAssociation of Bengal and oters3, State of Manipur and others vs. Chandm Manihar Singh" Arnit Das vs. Stat of Bihar5 and Prakash ingh’ Badal and another vs. State of Punjab and othersE). 4. n t present petitn, it appears that the petitier wants to get the uestion of Iaw ecided without settig out the facts of any particular society which has availed relaxation and have not been impleaded as a party respondent in this case. Thus; this petition is vague and is meritless. 5 ccordgly, the writ petion is dismissed. No order asto costs. . Ain it Sd/- h Satis K. Agnihotri Judge 2 1987 (Supp) SCC 93 3 4 (1995) 2 scc 11 5 (1999) 7 scc 53 6 (2001 7 scc 657 (2007) 1 scc 1 K ‘. \ h a , e S I he io on q d n 6 ’0 )