S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2659/2008 (Mahant Shiv Prakash Chandra Versus State of Rajasthan & Others) Date of Order :: 16th September, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. A.K. Pareek for the petitioner Mr. G.S. Gill, Additional Advocate General for the State of Rajasthan-respondents Mr. Amardeep Atwal for the respondent no.3 The petitioner has preferred this writ petition to transfer the case no. 97/2007 from Superintendent, Government Museum and Mahal, Amer who is acting as Estate Officer to any other Estate Officer on the ground that according to respondents the property in dispute belongs to Government Museum and Mahal, whereas the petitioner is contesting it. 2. The learned Additional Advocate General Mr. G.S. Gill has produced a copy of Notification dated 22nd May, 2008 issued by General Administrative (Group-2) Department, Government of Rajasthan, wherein it has been directed that Superintendent Arts and Survey (Headquarters), Jaipur Amer will be Estate Officer in place of Superintendent, Government Museum and Mahal, Amer. Therefore, the present writ petition has become infructuous. -2- 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his apprehension is that such Notification has not been notified in the Official Gazette till now, therefore, the Superintendent, Government Museum and Mahal, Amer may act as Estate Officer in his case. The learned Additional Advocate General submits that he is not aware as to whether this Notification has been notified in the official gazette or not, but he submits that it may be observed that unless this Notification is notified in the Official Gazette, the case of petitioner will not be heard by Superintendent, Government Museum and Mahal, Amer. 4. In view of Notification dated 22nd May, 2008 alongwith statement of learned Additional Advocate General, as mentioned above, the writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. It is also made clear that Superintendent, Arts and Survey (Headquarters), Jaipur, Amer will now hear the case of petitioner as per Notification dated 22nd May, 2008 as and when it is notified in the official gazette. 5. No order as to costs. 6. In view of the fact that writ petition itself has been disposed of, there is no need -3- to pass any order on the application filed on behalf of the respondents under Article 226(3) of the Constitution and another application for taking on record the document and both stand disposed of. (NARENDRA KUMAR Jain),J. DK