IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1540 of 2011 SMT. CHHOTKI DEVI . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 2. 14.02.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the final resolution of No Confidence Motion passed on 31.12.2010, removing her from the post of Up-Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Rakhwari and the election of respondent no. 9 to the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the requisition for No Confidence Motion was not in consonance with Section 15(4)(i) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act inasmuch as 7 clear days notice of the meeting was not given. It is next urged that the petitioner was not served with any copy of the notice. The second ground urged in terms of Section 18(4)(2) of the Act a no- Confidence Motion could not be brought in the last six months of the tenure. Counsel for the State points out that the notice for the requisition of the meeting under Section 15(4)(i) of the Act is dated 14.12.2010 and the No Confidence Motion has been considered on 31.12.2010. The removal of an Up-Mukhiya by a No Confidence Motion is not a bar to the incumbent contesting elections afresh under the Act. In exercise of its discretionary powers 2 under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court is not required in law to interfere with every order which is brought before it even if it is satisfied that the order may not be sustainable, if the issue appears to be becoming academic and the relief which may be granted would be illusory or primarily infructuous in nature. The writ Court may in that event refuse to interfere even with a wrong order. In (2005) 6 SCC 454 (ONGC Ltd. Vs. Sendhabhai Vastram Patel) it has been held at Paragraph-23 as follows:- “23. It is now well settled that the High Courts and the Supreme Court while exercising their equity jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 32 of the Constitution as also Article 136 thereof may not exercise the same in appropriate cases. While exercising such jurisdiction, the superior courts in India may not strike down even a wrong order only because it would be lawful to do so. A discretionary relief may be refused to be extended to the appellant in a given case although the Court may find the same to be justified in law.” The Court is satisfied that there is no occasion for it to go into the correctness of the unseating of the petitioner for the mere reason that even if the petitioner were reinstated it would be for a very short duration as the learned counsel for the State informs that fresh Panchayat Elections are to be notified on the 21st of February, 2011. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)