HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Wr§t Petitian N0. 1502 (if 2004 ‘ PE'I‘ITIONER M/s Adarsh Travells Bus Service (Pamnmhip Firm) through panner Sultan Khan, Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG). VERSUS The State of Uttar Pradesh, through the Secretary Depanment of Transpon, Lucknow (UP). 2. The State Transport Authority, Chhattisgarh Raipur (CG). ('1 3. The State Transport Authority? Utter Pradesh, Lucknow (UP). 4. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow (Uh). 5. Utter Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Lucknow, through its Managing Director, Lucknow (UP). (WRIT T’ETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 (2) GF THE CONSTITUTION OF WDIA) (SB: Honvbie Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri,’ J.) be RESPONDENTS Shn' Vivek Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, Advocate for the respondent No. 1 .& 3. Shri A.S. Kachhwaha, Deputy Advocate General for the State. ORAL ORDER (ragged an 21“ {ray orJanumy, 2009) With the consent ofthe parties, the matter is taken 'up for hearing tinally. 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not claiming any relief in this petition as nothing survivesnow. 2. The issue. as to whether inter state transport can be germitted without . agreement, cannot be decided in this matter, as the period of permit has already come to an end. The question is academic, which cannot be decided in absence of facts. Be that as it may, it is trite law that if a case has become inituctuous on the facts ofthe case and question remains to be decided for academic purpose, it is Ti/ i i i , {0Q 2 Ax Sahu {not necessary to examine the' case. (See Basheshar Nath Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi and Rajsthan and Anotherl, Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agtawal Vs. Rajiv Gandhiz, Secretary, Ministry of Infonnation & Broadcasting Govt. of India and Others Vs. Cricket Association of Bengal and Otherss, State of Manipur and Others Vs. Chandam Manihar Singh4, Amit Das Vs. State of Bihars and Prakash Singh Badal and‘another Vs. State of Punjab and Others“. 4. In viewofthe foregoing, this petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. *5. Interim lfelief granted earlier stands vacated. if 6. Consequently, M(W)P No. 4408/04, application for vacating stay, also stands disposed of. Sd/— Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ‘AIR i959 sc 149 ? 19m (Supp) scc 93 4 i995 (2) scc 161 “ 1999 (7) soc 503 5 20m (7) soc 657 5 2007 (1) scc 1 afwsares 7 « /