©iik.iS.d1? .*^^iyll''-'Al'i ^f^T^"^7^^ srQ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) No. ^.^0' /2009 PETITIONER' Dhansaya, aged about 32 years, S/o Shri Chowaram Sahu, R/o Grara Panchayat Bamhanibhata (wrongly mention Bamhanichar Bhata), Tahsil and Vikaskhand Dongargaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon VERSUS RESPONDENTS/1 /y/ <* ^^y ^w /^v -^'^ <^^/ <?'<y ^' ...- '2 .-3 The State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary Panchayat Department, D.K. S. Bhawan, Raipur The Collector, Rajnandgaon Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Dongargaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon Chief Executive officer Janpad Panchayat Dongargaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon Gram Panchayat through its Secretary Gram Panchayat Bamhanibhata Tahsil and Vikaskhand Dongargaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA on Arun PETITIONER RESPONDENTS HIGH COURT OF CHHATnS^GARH_:_B!LASPUR WRIT PETITION (0 N0.4213 OF_20Q9 Dhansaya Versus The State trf Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 226 & 227 ofthe Constitution oflndia) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyerforthe State. Shri Shashank Thakur, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri Rakesh Thakur, Advocate for the respondent No.5. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 29th day of November, 2010) 5. Heard tearned counsel for the parties. 6. At the very outset, Shri Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5, submits that the petition has become infructuous on fhe groundthat the election to the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Bamhanibhata, Tahsil Dongargarh.District Rajnandgaon, had already taken place in the month of January, 2010. 7. At this juncture, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there are still few issues, which need to be decided, as the same are likely to recur time and again. 8. Be that as it may, even if the substantia! 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 should refrain from entertaining such petitions. (See Basheshar Nath vs. Commissioner of Income- tax, Delhi and Rajasthan and another, Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agrawal vs. Rajiv GandhP, Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Govt. of India and others vs. Cricket Association of Bengal and others, State of Manipur and others vs. Chandam Manihar Singh , Arnit Das vs. State of Bihai^ and Prakash Singh Badal and another vs. State ofPunjab andothers). 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. No order asto costs. ———— Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge AIR 1959 SC 149 1987 (Supp) SCC 93 (1995) 2 SCC 161 (1999)78cc503 (2001) 7 SCC 657 (2007) 1 SCC 1