1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4514 of 2001 Prakash s/o Kamlakar Pathak, Age 51 years, Occ. Business and Journalist as well as Member of the Municipal Council, Latur, r/o Samrat Chowk, Koyna Sub Station Road, Latur 413 512. ...PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. The Collector & District Election Officer, Latur. 3. The State Election Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai. 4. The Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Latur. ...RESPONDENTS ... None for the petitioner. Mr. K.S.Patil, AGP, for respondent State. Mr.Vikram Patil, Adv., h/f Mr. V.D.Hon, Adv., for respondent no.4. ... CORAM:S.B.DESHMUKH AND K.U.CHANDIWAL, JJ. DATE:26/8/2010 *** 2 PER COURT : (Per S.B.Deshmukh, J.) 1. None appears for the petitioner. We have heard learned A.G.P. Mr.K.S.Patil and learned Counsel Mr.Vikram Patil, instructed by Mr. V.D.Hon, learned Counsel, who appears for respondent no.4. 2. Respondent no.4 is Municipal Council, constituted in accordance with the provisions of Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 ( hereinafter referred as the "Act of 1965"). The petitioner in the writ petition appears to have claimed status of Municipal Councillor and journalist on the date of filing of the writ petition. In this writ petition the petitioner has raised challenge to the Ordinance issued by respondent State, amending Section 9 of the Act of 1965. This is peculiar prayer made by the petitioner. By consequential prayer, stay to the execution of the Ordinance No.XXVIII of 2001 thereby amending Section 10 of the Act of 1965 is sought. Petition appears to have been filed on 24.10.2001. 3. In response to the notice, affidavit-in- reply is filed on behalf of respondent no.2. It has been affirmed by one Sanjay s/o Dattatraya Ambekar, who was working as Town Planner, 3 Collectorate, Latur, on the date of affirmation. Copy of the Ordinance ( Annexure D - page No.33) is on record. With the assistance of learned A.G.P. and Advocate for respondent no.4 we have seen the statements made in this affidavit. From paragraph no.7 of the reply affidavit of respondent no.2, it seems that delimitation (formation of wards) was widely notified in daily newspapers. According to affiant, election programme was also published by the Collector in accordance with law. There was no objection raised on behalf of the petitioner. Learned Counsel appearing for the Municipal Council, respondent no.4, makes a statement that not only delimitation has been completed but election for that period also has taken place according to law. We see that the petition has become infructuous by passage of time and we do not wish to keep the petition pending for any purpose. We do not wish to enter into merits i.e. legality or otherwise of the Ordinance in question. Writ petition, being infructuous, stands dismissed. Rule discharged. No costs. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) (S.B.DESHMUKH) JUDGE JUDGE agp/4514-01wp