@ WARE AT EILASPUR “Lam No. 637ozgoo7 WRIT Wm PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (s3: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Dr. N.K.Shuk1a, Sr. Advocate with Shri Dilip Dubey, Advocate for the petig'mief. ‘ Shri SumeshBajaj, Government Advocate for the State. O R D E R (Passed on this 23rd day of October, 2007) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since the election in question has already been completed, this p petition has become infruotuous. w) Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner may be granted liberty to tile a fresh petition, if so, advised, arising from new cause of action. The petition is accordingly, dismissed as having become infructuous Sdl— Satish K. Agnihotri Judge PETITIONER T.Goverdhan Rao, Son Shn T.Mohan ’ Rac, Ag€d about 36 years, Retyidenca of Gram Tim€d Post Timed ’l‘ehsil Bhopalpatnam Vs. RESPONDENTS 1. The State of C.Gr. Through The Secretaxy: Department of Cooperative Society, D.K.S.Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur 2. The Registrar, Cooperative Society of C.G. South Bastar, Dantewada 3. The Returning O$cer, Adivasi Vipnan Vibhag, Bijapur South Bastar, ex Bhopaipatrmam