M ^i^^^^'^''^''^ ^u^^^*^or:^^^^s^-yt1/^^?^:'U^A^^^Js/-^ :°^£s ^-^St^.'..'^^.^- '-:^^'L •S;ia-yG'ir3->i-,.Sb-k-'*.;a* fc.G.y.,r:^'.AI'"':-'' W%ITPETmONrCVN0.^3//ZOO^ •3. '•. :•'' IN'THEidALTTER 'BE3FWEEN- •:.'-? .::.:^,..PE'ITI'IQi>IER®:i;5?-'' i%IIESSsitt^..-^:;':'.' ^W4s!5^''S-^?.'.y'' -'" ^<^SSy^:''';r:;; ^t"' i..^ 'as.s s! 'A'11-^ .'^& :S ^•;^:|Baxri:uEanf|^ad5'aks;;fl ^%?ScK0i!SNt;SiEt[ara -Agsd3K)i0t^ais'. ,fe .^.:Ejs ":'•?- ]^adeBf>e)f3MageHardi;^,"1.^.'; ^efasifeJaiogiF,®^.]J^gir-Cliam@a Chhaftisgarii«'= • ,1^,:'::1.^ : ,. .:; ::" :;; VERSUS RESPOND^NTS: :.::-- ::;^7: ^Sfafe'of^hlimKgaFh, '.! : -,; ••:, 1 •? g;^TEBWgB!Eofflg!i&or£.\:,,,.. ' •, .: 1'1;:^';.:1'^ ^::',:1^ '• , .:' ;'y^'y^^Sis]^^ "' "'"' '.-• '^%'.:^''::../?^^X^f%^:S<2'lfiW^aii SI^ ;'' ^ ''^ ,,,a;^<.^-.1-- .- - ^;ri'l'.l<\-^~''')^^'7> ^:;S<|pBrj .y..^-!:-r,^'"l'Janj^:©ianiaSi§«£isi®S|i^:l^^ c^-y^-:7i^^^. ih;€^m^'N9|fe¥g|^i^®8s^ ^';w '• •^^in/^-0'" ' ^ ';: ;^:^ '"''''<ei^€ilXiSSSII^ ;' 3. ShnGeeta3?r^aftMm(SarpancU), - Sbn. of Slin3ieevanlal Miri^ -' fl '• 41;..^:l::Agedab&ut2Z:years/.;,' '?^;',,^^^ LesideittofGrant^aiictiayat,||ardi,?y^ ^S;^^?^P-}^^i^liS^'--^^ ; : Chhattisgsrh., ^Rlt PErFrFION-tJNDER-AR"TICKE;:226 OE-IBS; APPROPRIATE WRFT.-IN TIIEWAMKE?OF:,MffiG $MI®.- CERTIGfiy<tM.AS®.;FOR.ISSlHAN£E'OF©'I'aERi;-.t'?: £ SUITABLE ^VM1S.®IRECTIONORDmECTiOIStS. ORDERORORDEI AF^. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR PETITIONER WRIT PETITION (C) N0. 6431 OF 2007 Laxmikant Vadyak Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others RESPONDENTS (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri H.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 8th day ofJuly, 2010) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of quo warranto directing respondent No.3 to vacate the office of Sarpahch, Grampanchayat- Hardi. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.3 herein was elected as Sarpanch of Grampanchayat-Hardi in the month of January 2005. Thereafter, according to the petitioner, a petition was filed under the provisions of Section 36 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (Annexure P/5), the same was dismissed by the Coliector, Janjgir-Champa, by order dated 02/12/2005 (Annexure P/6). There was no challenge to the said order.; The petitioner questioned the election ofthe respondent No.3 on the ground that the respondent No.3 has manipulated his date of birth and after manipulation, he contestedthe election for the post of Sarpanch and was duly elected in the month of January 2005. Thus, the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of quo warranto. •^ 2 Having heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto, it is evident that the election took place in the month of January 2005 for a period of 5 years and the said term has already come to an end. Thus, the issue involved herein has become academic and, as such, it is not necessary to go into the merits of the case and further whether or not a writ in the nature of quo warranto to oust the respondent No,3 from the office of Sarpanch who has duly been elected, may be issued, particularlywhen election petition filed against the election of Sarpanch was rejected by the Tribunal. The order passed by the Tribunal was not challenged before any higher forum. It is a trite law that in a writ petition wherein a writ in the nature of quo warranto has been sought, if the term of the elected Sarpanch has already expired the petition has become infructuous and it is not necessary to go into the allegation and counter allegation, to decide the academic question, when the petition has become infructuous. (See Basheshar Nath v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi and Rajasthan and another, Dhartipakar IVIadan Lal Agrawal v. Rajiv Gandhi , Secretary, Ministry of Information & Boradcasting, Govt. of India and others v. Cricket Association of Bengal and others , State of IVIanipur and others v. Chandam Manihar ^ 1AIR1959SC 149 21987(Supp)SCC93 31995(2)3cc 161 [ Gowri 6. Singh , Amit Das v. State of Bihars and Prakash Singh Badal and another v. State of Punjab and others ). Applying the well settled principle of law, as aforestated to the facts of the case, wherein, challenge in this petition was election of Sarpanch which fook place in the month of January 2005. The term of the election has come to end in the month of January 2010. Thus, no useful purpose would be served even if the instant petition is allowed. Since, the tenure of the respondent No.3 has come to an end in the month of January 2010 itself and the petition has become academic, no writ of quo warranto can be issued by this Court at this juncture. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. ^ Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 4 1999(7)3cc 503 5 2001 (7) SCC 657 62007(1)SCC1