3. M/s Jeevan Bus Service, through bowie! of attorney Ho5der Tmeshwar ”aimr‘av $za Jag...ohan Vaishnav, ages; aim” 37 yeas, Rio New Bus Stand Pandwi, Raipur, Désirkt Ram“ (CG). {Wm petifion under Artide 227 of the Constitution of indie) Smgie Bench : Hara’bie Shfi Satish K. Agnihom, J. Presem’: $hr§ SK. saipai, scunsai fer the petiioner. $hri $hashank shaku; Pane§ Lawver forthe $‘2aie. $§AL §RQER {Pas5ed an this 2“ day OE February, 2509} W§th the comem of {earned ccunsei appeaa’ing far the pames, the matter §s heard finaHv. 2) Learned counsei appeafing fer the petitioner submiis that the petitiene. ha; cuattenged the crder dated 17-4-2008 (Annexure—P/t) passed by the State Transport Appeiiate Trtbunat. Raipur, (for short “the STAT”) in revtsion Ne.54i2QG8. whtch was fried by the resnodnetn No.3 herein. 3) The dispute invoived in the revision was to the grant t6 temporary permit No.27/O8 on 2-4-2008 for the eeriod frem 34-2908 to 39-4—2G08 in favour at the petitioner herein. Since the eriod of termeorary permit has aiready been expired. no usefui puraose wouid be served in deciding this aetmu'i e“ meme as the aame would a'houm to the decisioh oniy for auademo purpose p H§GH CGURT CF CHHA??€SGARH: BILASPUR Wi5t Petitior: {22?} No. 395‘? of 2G98 Peé§t§aneri Mia Kanker Roadwqvs thrwuh Ncn=A9pi§cam Managwg Farmer P°etar~ Singh Parcha aged about b2 yea's bia Late Aegendra singh Garc'na, Rio Civii Lines, Raipm, District Raipur (m3). Versus Resaondentsi “L ‘taie Transpert Appeiiate Tribunai, Appiicant Raipur (CG). 2. Searetary, Regionai Transport Author§tya Jagda§pur, Dismct Jagdaimx' (Easter) {CG}. A a) §€ is we}: sewed principle of #aw that if the marzer has become §nfrucmous era ihe facts of the case and question remains to be decided fm academic purpose, i? is not necessafy EO examme the case, as obeewed by Hon’bie Supreme Court in several matters. (See Basheshar Nath v. Qemmieeiener Qt ineeme Tax, gem and R.ajaethen and anotherj; Qhartieakar Medan Lei Agrawa! v. Rajiv isendhiz, Secretary, Ministry ef intotmation & Boraecasting, Govt. ef tndta and ethers v. Cricket Aesccietion of Bengai and othersa, State of Manipur and others v: Chandem Menihar singh4, §m§t Des v. 5mm 9f $ihar5 and Prakasn §ingh Bade: and another v. state of Punjab anti others?) 5) This Court cannot adjudicate a matter which has atready become tnfructuous and no reiiet’ can be grantee to the petitioner. ? 6) Appiying the above stated wet? settied principtes o? taw to the facts of the case on hand, th§s petiton is dismissed accordingiy. No order asto costs. However! it is open to the petitioner to cnaiienge the procedure adopted by the SIAT in an aporogeriete case, if so advised ’ Satish K. Agnihotrx Judge Gowri i MR 1959 ec $49 1987 (Supp) soc e3 3 1995 (2} soc 151 g fieoe {7} sco .503 f 2cm (7) soc 657 i 2007 (1) soC1