1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.7387/04 (M/s. Brijendra Minerals V/s. State of Raj. & Ors.) Date of Judgment :: 15.07.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S. CHAUHAN Mr. Kedar Solanki for the petitioner. Mr. Dinesh Yadav, AAG for the State. An application has been moved by the State praying that the writ petition filed by the petitioner should be declared as having become infructuous. According to the learned counsel for the State, the petitioner had prayed that the State be directed to execute the agreement of renewal of mining lease area in compliance of order of sanction dated 5th August, 2000. However, vide order dated 26.12.2008, the said sanction order dated 05.08.2000 has been revoked. Therefore, the first prayer cannot be granted by this Court. Moreover, since the petitioner has challenged the order dated 26.12.2008 before the Central Government, he cannot be permitted to do forum shopping. Therefore, in the light of these facts, this writ petition should be declared as infructuous. 2 On the other hand, Mr. Kedar Solanki, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that once the sanction order was passed by the respondents, they were legally bound to enter into the agreement. It is their omission to enter into the agreement which had been challenged by the petitioner. The case has been pending since 2004, therefore, his grievance cannot be ousted from the Court on the ground that the sanction order dated 05.08.2000 has been revoked. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the order dated 26.12.2008. Undoubtedly, the petitioner's case is on the basis of sanction order dated 05.08.2000. However, after passing of the order dated 26.12.2008 the said order does not exist in the eyes of law as the said order has been revoked by the order dated 26.12.2008. Since the said order no longer exists, even if this case were to be heard, this Court could not possibly grant the prayer made by the petitioner. Moreover, since the petitioner has challenged the order dated 26.12.2008 before a statutory authority, this Court would not exercise its writ jurisdiction. Once the statutory 3 remedy has been availed of by the petitioner, at best, the writ petition is only of an academic interest. In this view of the matter, the application filed by the State is, hereby, allowed. The writ petition no longer survives; it is, hereby, declared that the writ petition has become infructuous. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. [R.S.CHAUHAN]J A.Asopa/