Petitioner Writ Petition (2271 No. SS15 of20Q8 iVS/s. Dubsv Traveis bv Attornev Bhavesh Dubey, 36 years, S/o. Manilal Dubey, Office @Hira Areade, Pandri, Raipur. ResRpndent Regionai Transp&rt Authority, CG, Raii (Writ Petition under Articie 227 of Constitution of india) i,J. Prftsent' SB: Hon'Me Mr. Raja Sharma, counse! for the petitioner. Mr. Shashank Thakur, Pane! Lawyerforthe Stete. Mr. Aman Kesharwani, Advocate appeara on bshalf Khare, Advocate for the Inten/enor. ri F.S, (Passedon this2 day ofDecember, Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits Shat the question involved in this case is asto whether a Bus permit holder can be granted a tsmporary bus permit during the period Bus is not operationaS inany part of the day under any other permit. Learned counse! further submits that there is no prohibition under the provisions of law preventingthe authorities concerned not to grant permit to the Bus operator, who operates the Bus on the basis of temporary bus permit during the period the Bus is lying idle in any part of 24 of the day. - 2) Be that as it may, initiai permit, whteh is under considerafrion in this case, was granted for a period from 1-10-2008 to 30-11-2038 which has already come to an end. Now the qyestion raised by the petitiQner is of acadsmic interest which cannot be adjudicated for want of faotua! materials. Thus, nothihg remains for adjudication. -is.! aaju —2 3) it is weli settied principles crf iaw thatthe questjon of law on academic interest cannot be adjudicated upon for want of relevant fscte. (See: Basheshar Nath Vs. Commissionerof' Income-tax, Dethi and Rajasttian and another, Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agrawai Vs. Rajiv Gandhi-, -Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Govt. of indiaand others vs. Cricket AssQciation of Bengai and others , State of Manipur and ^hers vs. C-handam Manihar Singh4, Amrit Das Vs. State of Bihar and Prakash Singh. Bada! another Vs. State of Punjab and cthers0. 4) in view of the foregoing, this petition Is dismissed as having become infructuous. Consequently,!.A,No.1 atso stands dismissed. However,the petitioner is at liberty to raise the above stated issues in an appropriate case. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihom Judge ' (AIE. 1959 SC 149) °(1987(Supp)SCC93) 3 (1995) 2 SCC 161) 4(1999)7SCC503) '(200D7SCC657) "•(IOOT) I SCC 1) •