^F^ HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WR1T PETITION (StNO. 6572 OF 2008 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Chandram Banjare. S/o Shri Dulariram Banjare, aged about 56 years. Patwari Halka No.20, R/o Sarkanda. Tahsil and DistrictBilaspur(CG). Versus 1. Chief Secretary. State of Chhattisgarh. DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2. Secretary, Department of Law. DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 3. Secretary, Department of Revenue, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 4. District Collector, Bilaspur (CG). 5. Sub Divisional OfRcer (Revenue), Bilaspur 6. Tahsildar. Bilaspur (CG). 7. Shri Shaitendra Tondon. Patwari, Patwari Halka No.7, Garhwat, District Bilaspur (CG). (Writ petition under Articte226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, <J. Present:- Shri Saleem Kazi. counsel for the petitioner, Shri Panksy Shrivastava. Panel Lawyer for the State. Shri O.P. Sahu, counsel forthe respondent No.7. . ORDER (Passed on this 11m day of February, 2009) By this petition. the petitioner jmpugns the orders dated 30-6-2008. 11-7-2008 & 16-9-2008 with regard to transfer of the respondent No.7 from Partwari Halka No.7 to Patwari Halka No.20. 2) In W.P.(S) No.6331/2008 (Shailendra Tondan vs State of Chhattisgarh & Others) by order dated 16-12-2008,this Court after hearing the parties disposect of the matter as nothing survives in the petition and granted liberty to the petitioner therein to file a fresh representation before the Collector. Bilaspur.for redressal of his grievances raised in the petition. On consideration of the representation. order dated 9-1-2009 has been passed whereby the petitioner herein has been relieved. SubsequenUy, 2-' Gowri one more order dated 20-1-2009 has been passed by the Secretary, Department of Revenue, in favoyr of the petitioner herein and there is no challenge to the subsequent orders. 3) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is challenging the jurisdiction pf the authQritJes concerned. The question raised by the petitioner has become academic and the same cannot be decided for want of existence of facts. 4) It is well setUed principte of law that if the matter has become infructuous on the facts of the case and question remains to be decided for academic purpose, it is not necessary to examine the case, as observed by the Hon'bte Supreme Court in catena of dedsions. (See Basheshar Nath v. Commisisoner of Income Tax, Delhi and Rajasthan and another1, Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agrawat v. Rajiv Gandhi2, Secretary, Ministry of Infonnation & Broadcasting, Govfc of India and others vs. Crjcket Association of Bengal and others3. State of Manipur and others v. Chandam Manihar Slngh4, Amit Das v. State of Bihar5 and Prakash Singh Badal and another v. State of Punjab and others8). 5) This Court cannot adjudicate a matter, which has already become infructuous and no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 6) In view of the foregoing, the petition js liabte to be dismissecl and js hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. 7) Consequently, all the pending applications stand disposed of. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 1AIR 1959 SC 149 21987(Supp)SCC93 3 1995(2)8cc 161 4 1999(7)3cc 503 8 2001(7)8cc657 6 2007(1)8cci