(L^- ^ SWGLE BENCH INTHEHSCmGOURTOFC^HATTlSaARH^BEI^ WRIT PETSTION (Cl N0.?%^ OF 2010 PETITIONER Urmila Sharina, D/o J.S. Sharma, aged about 49 years, R/ o Three Circular Road, Allahabad (UP). RESPONDENTS Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh; Through the Secretary, Department 6f Hi^ Educafion/ D.K.S. Building, Mantrataya, Raipur, Chhattisgarti. 2. Indira Kala Sangit Vishwavictyalaya, Khairagarh, Dist. Rajnandgaon (CG)y through its Registrar. 3; In-charge Examinatioti Dgpartiiient, Indira Kala Sangit VisKwavidyaIaya, Khairagarh, Dist. Rajriandgaon (CG). WmT;PEyiTl6N-(lJll]OER'AHTICLE-2260F'tHE.. . 'CONSTi'TUTlON OF' SNDlA ^ HIGH CQURTOF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) N0.1809 OF 2010 PETITIONER UrmilaSharma RESPQNDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Shashank Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.N. Roy, Panel Lawyerforthe State. Shri R.L. Bajpai, Advocate for the respondents No.2 & 3. ORDER (ORAU (Passed on this 20th day of October, 2010) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks the main relief, inter alia, that the respondent University authorities be directed to allow the petitioner to participate in the examination scheduled to be commenced from 19th April, 2010. 3. The examination had already commenced and the same has been completed, as is admitted by the petitioner as well as the respondents. The petitioner raises a point of conduct of the authorities in dealing with the petitioner. 4. Be that as it may, since the prayer confines to only direction to the respondent authorities to permit the petitioner to appear in examination held from 19 April, 2010, the other contentions may not be relevant, at this stage when the petition has become infructuous. 5. It is well settled that the Court should refrain from entertaining such petitions, when the petition has become infructuous. (See Basheshar Nath vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi and nwfflflnig0;^^ 6. Rajasthan and another1, Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agrawal vs. Rajiv GandhP, Secretary, Ministry of Infonnation & Broadcasting, Govt. of India and others vs. Cricket Association of Bengal and others3, State of Manipur and others vs. Chandam Manihar Singh4, Arnit Das vs. State of Bihais and Prakash Singh Badal and another vs. State of Punjab and others6). In the result, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 1AIR 1959 SC 149 21987(Supp)SCC93 3 (1995)28cc 161 4 (1999)78cc 503 5 (2001)78cc 657 6 (2007) 1 SCC 1