IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13987 of 2010 1. ANZAR AHMAD KHAN S/O LATE MUSHTAQUE AHMAD KHAN R/O VILL & P.O.TULAPATGANJ, P.S. GHOGHARDIHA, DISTT- MADHUBANI Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY, ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA NIRAVACHAN SADAN, ASHOKA ROAD, NEW DELHI 2. THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA NIRVACHAN SADAN, ASHOKA ROAD, NEW DELHI 3. THE DEPUTY ELECTION COMMISSIONER AND APPELLATE AUTHRORITY, ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA NIRVACHAN SADAN, ASHOKA ROAD, NEW DELHI 4. THE UNDER SECRETARY, ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA NIRVACHAN SADAN, ASHOKA ROAD, NEW DELHI 5. THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION BIHAR THROUGH ITS SECRETARY SONE BHAWAN, PATNA 6. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE -CUM-DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER MADHUBANI 7. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER-CUM-ELECTION OFFICER JHANJHARPUR, DISTT- MADHUBANI ----------- 2. 05.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Election Commission of India. The petitioner had challenged the order dated 9.2.2009, as affirmed in Appeal on 29.7.2010, declaring the petitioner as disqualified for being chosen or being member of either house of the Parliament or of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State/Union Territory for a period of three years from the date of the order on the ground that he had failed to lodge account of election expenses in the manner prescribed by law with regard to the Assembly Election contested by him in February, 2005. Counsel for the Election Commission 2 produces a Xerox copy of an order of the Deputy Election Commissioner dated 25.9.2010, that the impugned order has been modified confining its operation to the period already undergone i.e. from 9.2.2009 to 23.9.2010 removing the disqualification for the remaining period from 24.9.2010 to 8.2.2012. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a part of the order still casts stigma on him. In view of the fact that relief has substantially been granted to the petitioner and there remains no impediment for him to contest elections in future which was the primary grievance, the Court is satisfied that the present writ application has become infructuous. If the petitioner is so advised, he may prefer a separate writ application questioning the impugned orders to the extent that it retains the order for the period already undergone. Let a Xerox copy of the letter dated 25.9.2010 with enclosure be kept on record. The writ application is disposed as infructuous. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J. )