^-J-'sai_-,. HIOH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISQARH; BtLASPUR CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI S.R.NAYAK, CJ. HON'BLE SHRt V.K.SHRIVASTAVA, J. 36 Shashi Kumar Bhagat, S/o Shri MR Bhagat, Aged about 39 years, R/o Viliage Bhurkela, Post-Jaria, Dist-Jashpur (CG) Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary School Education Department, IViantraiaya, Dau Kaiyan Singh Bhavan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2. 3. Chhattisgarh Madhyamik Shiksha Mandai, Ralpur (Chhattisgarh) Collector, District (Chhattisgarh) Ji 4. Superintendsnt of Police, District 5. District Education Officer, Jashpur (Chhattisgarh) Shri Amrtio Das, iearned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Prashant Mishra, learned Addl. Advocate General for the State/'respondents No.1,3, 4 & 5. Shri H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Ku. Sangeeta Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No.2. iBT The following oral order of ths Court was passed S.R. Nayak, C.J. At the time of hearing it was brought to our notice by leai Additional Advocate Genera! of the State that the examinations aiready been conducted by the Chhattisgarh h4adhyamik Shiksha Mandal Raipur, the second respondent herein. r ^t. ^- 1-- ^' 37 !n that view of the matter, granting relief to the petitioner as sought in the petition would npt arise. The point raised in the writ petition, therefore, has become academic. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of as infructuous. No costs. Hov/ever, we take strong exception to the attitude of the second respondent-Board. in this writ petition notice was ordered as earlier as on 21-2-2006, but, the Board has not chosen to fiie return meeting the alieaations made asainst them in the writ Detition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has filed the writ petition s.s pro bono public character without seeking any relief to himself and spending considerabie money apart from depositing a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards security deposit and, therefore, the Court be pleased to refund at least the security deposit. In the absence of the return on the part of the second respondent- Board meeting ailegations made in the writ petltion, we have no good reason to think that the ailegations made in this writ petition are baseless and/or mischievous. A pro bono public character who has moved this writ application to espouse public interest should not be burdened with the liability to pay security deposit and incur other expenditure. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner is not a pro bono publico and he has fited this writ pefition as vexatious measure and for some ex1;raneous consideration. In that vsew of the matter, we think that the petitloner is entitted to seek refund of security deposit, but, at the same time. In that view of the matter, we direct that the securit/ deposit of Rs.2,000/- furnished bv the petitloner be refunded to him, but, we direct the second respondent to deposit a sum of Rs.2,000/- to the Chhattisgarh High Court Legal Seroicss Committee within two weeks. Office to reoort comoliance."z Sd/- ChiefJustice Sdf- V.K. Shrivastava Judge <A