HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 201 of 2008 State of Uttarakhand and another. …Appellants. Versus Sri Badrinath Sri Kedarnath Mandir Samiti And another. ....Respondents Mr. L.P. Naithani, Advocate General assisted by Mr. P.C. Bisht, Brief Holder for the State. Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, Advocate for the respondents. Dated 15th May 2009 Coram: Hon’ble V.K.Gupta, C.J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. V.K. Gupta,C.J. (Oral) On this appeal coming up for consideration today, our attention has been drawn to the operative part of the impugned judgment dated 3rd October 2008 passed in W.P. No. 320 of 2008 (M/S) which reads thus:- “The writ petition is allowed. The impugned notification dated 6.2.2008 (Annexure No. 15 to the writ petition) is quashed. The subsequent Notification dated 5.3.2008 (copy Annexure C.A.1 to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents) whereby Sri Anusuya Prasad Bhatt has been appointed as President of the Committee is set aside and the committee headed by the petitioner no.2, Anusuya Prasad Maikhuri, is restored for the remaining period of its tenure. In the circumstances of the case, costs easy”. 2. By the aforesaid judgment, the learned Single Judge quashed the impugned Notification dated 06.02.2008 whereby respondent no.2 was removed from the post of President. The learned Single Judge also by the impugned judgment quashed Notification dated 05.03.2008 whereby one Anusuya Prasad Bhatt was appointed as President for the period of three years from the date of issuing of the aforesaid Notification viz. 05.03.2008. Two points emerge for our consideration today. 2 3. Firstly, the appointment of respondent no.2 herein as President having been made on 26.11.2005 for a period of three years and the said period of three years expiring on 25.11.2008, relief sought by respondent no.2/ writ petitioner has become infructuous because even the learned Single Judge in the operative part has clearly observed and directed that his status as President was to be “restored for the remaining period of its tenure”. That period having since expired, writ petition undoubtedly has become infructuous. 4. The appellants’ appeal also to that extent and for that purpose has become infructuous. 5. The second issue which arises for our consideration is that the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment set-aside the Notification dated 05.03.2008 as well. It is admitted by Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/writ petitioners that the aforesaid Notification has never challenged by his clients in the aforesaid writ petition. Since that Notification did not form subject matter of any controversy in the said writ petition nor was it challenged, the impugned judgment in so far as it set-aside the said Notification being wrong and incorrect, is hereby set-aside. The Notification dated 5th March, 2008 accordingly is upheld with all the consequences. 6. The appeal therefore, in so far as the challenge to that part of the impugned judgment, which set-aside the Notification dated 05.03.2008, is allowed. 7. No order as to costs. (V.K. Bist, J.) (V.K. Gupta, C.J.) 15.05.2009 SKS/NCM: