I1_IEE,BI6H COTOT 05- JTJBICATTJBS A3; BILASPTIB (eBHA'rrE3:S6aaH) WRIT' ,PE3'ITI©HSo^ _,_'^__OF_ 2005' PETII'IOBEK;- BSSPOHBBNIS:- ^^ B&ASPya Sadanand Patnaik, son of Beeaa Ke-fcaa Eatnai.k, aged atioat 1A- years, resident pf P.0. Iilbera, Block lamnar, Taia: G';aargi£ioda,Bls'fc;Baxgarfl(GG) Vs. ^ 1. State of GnAattisgamstarouga:, Seeretapy, Paneflayat; BepaTtiaeat, D.E.Baawaa, Eaipur (C.5). ^ 2. G'flief BxeeutiTe Officer, Jangat ^ Panchaya-fc, Taanar, Bist: Raigarn(C5) ^-3 • Sati-Divtsional_0fficer, Tah: Gflargfloda, Blst: Balgam (G.&) ' <', 1)-. Sarpanea, .Village Paacaaya-t; Lltiera,: Btoefc 2 aBinar ,Ta&: Giiar®aoda,B3.:st.^j ! Baigana(S.S).' . . ; / WBIT PBTITIOB 'WBSS. SSS'LGIS 226/22? Q? SBS •H M\ mGHCOURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRITPETITIONNo. 5475.0f2005 Sadanand Patnaik. ' VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. ^ ^- WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OFINDIA SB: Hon^le Shri Satish K. Aenihotri, J, Present: Smt. Anju Ahuja, Advpcate forthe petitioner. Shri Sushil Dubey, Govemment Advocate for the State/ respondent No. 1 and 3. Shri Sandeep Dubey, Advocate for the respondent No. 2. None for the respondent No. 4. . ORDERfORAL) (Passed on 20th day of January, 2011) -*y 1. Challenge in this petitipn is to the mterim orderdated 17.10.2005 (Annexure P/9) passed by the Sub Divisiorial Officer (Revenue) & Competerit Officer, (for short 'the SDO') Gharghoda, District Raigarh, whereby the stay granted by it on 27.09.2005, was vacated. 2. The facts, in nutshell, asprojected by the petitioner is that pursuant to the order dated 11.09.2005 (AnnexureP/7) passed by.the Gram Panchayat, Libera, District Raigarh, the petitioner, working as Panchayat Karmi, was temiinated from service. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the SDO, Gharghoda. TheSDO, Gharghoda, after having heard leamed counsel for fhe petitioner, stayed the order dated 11.09.2005 (Annexure P/7) vide its order dated 27.09.2005 till disposal of the appeal, pending before him. Subsequently, by order dated 17.10.2005, the stay order granted by it was vacated. Thereagainst, the present writ petition has been filed. The petitioner also challenges the termination order which was the subjectmatteroftheappealbeforethe SDO, Gharghoda. •• •Bli ^^ 3. During pendency ofthis petition, the appeal has akeady been disposed ofbythe SDO, Gharghoda on 30.11.2005. Thus, fhis petition has become infmctuous as fhere is no challenge to the fmal order and mterim order, which is under challenge in this petition, has merged with the fmal order passed by theSDO, Gharghoda. 4. So far as challenge to the tennination order is concemed, the same cannot be questioned in the instant petitionas when fhe instant petition was filed challenging the interfm order passed by the SDO, Gharghoda, the matter of termination was pending consideration before the same authority and for the same relief, n'o writ is maintainable. Thus, this petition has become infructuous. 5. The contention of the petitioner that there are certain other incidental questions involved in this petition, does not merit acceptance as the same cannot be considered, as after disposal ofthe appeal by the SDO, Gharghoda, all the questions have become academic and it is well settled law, that questions ofacademic nature cannot be decided for want of facts. (See Basheshar Nath v. Commissioner oflncome Tax, Delhi and Rajasthan and another , Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agrawal v. Rajiv Gandhi, Secretary, Ministry oflnformation & Boradcasting, Govt. oflndia andothersv. Cricket Association ofBengdl and others , State ofManipur and others v. Chandam Manihar Singh, Amit Das v. State of Bihar and Prakash Singh Badal and another v. State of Punjab and others). 6. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. — — "7 Sd/- / SatishK.Agnihotri Judge Amit ' AIR 1959 SC 149 2(1987)SuppSCC93 3 (1995) 2 SCC 161 4 (1999) 7 SCC 503 5 (2001)78cc 657 .' (2007) 1 SCC 1