(/f/p//_a IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) w.P.(Art.227) Nof? 79 0f 2009. ': Onkar .Dhar Diwan, aged about 58 years, S/o. late Shri Hemdhar Diwan, arpanch Gram Panchayat Jevra, District Durg (C.G.) PETITIONER Versus RESPONDENTS :1) State of Chhattisgarh / through Secretary, Panchayat and Rural DevelOpment Department, DKS Bhavan, G.E.Road, Raipur (C.G.) Sub Divisional Officer—cum— Prescribed Officer, Durg, District (C.G.) :3) Additional Collector, District Durg (C.G.) Director (Panchayat) Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) x5) Naib Tahsildar, Smt. Lata "Yugal Urbasa, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Durg, / S HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (Art.227) NO.974 OF 2009 PETITIONER Onkar Dhar Diwan Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 227 of the Constitution of India Singie Bench : Hon‘ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri‘ J. RESPONDENTS Present :- Shri Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.N. Roy, Panei Lawyerfor the State. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, Advocate for the respondent No.5. Ms. Lata Yugal Urbasa, Additional Tahsildar, Mungeli, is also present. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 11‘“ day of November, 2010) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Shri Roy, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State and Shri Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5, submit that challenge in this petition is to the no confidence motion passed by resolution dated 3—11—2007 against the petitioner when the petitioner was holding the post of Sarpanch. Thereafter, fresh election to the post of Sarpanch and other Panchas had already taken place in the month of January, 2010, thus, the petition becomes infructuous. The aforesaid facts are not disputed by Shri Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, however, he submits that the substantial question of law is involved in this case. 4. Be that as it may, even if the substantial question of law is involved, it is well settled principle of law that if on the facts of the case the petition has become infructuous, the academic question cannot be decided by the Court and the Court should refrain from entertaining such petitions. (See Basheshar Nath vs. Commissioner of ) Income-tax, Delhi and Rajasthan and another7, Dhartipakar Madan La/ Agrawa/ vs. Rajiv Gandhi2, Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Govt. of India and others vs. Cricket Association of Bengal and others3, State of Manipur and others vs. Chandam Manihar Singh", Arnit Das vs. State of Bihar5 and Prakash Singh Badal and another vs. State of Punjab and others6). 5. In the result, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. Sdi- Satish K. Agnihgtrlrji, Judge i 1AIR 1959 SC 149 2 1987 (Supp) scc 93 3 (1995) 2 SCC 161 4 (1999) 7 scc 503 5 (2001) 7 scc 657 6 (2007) 1 scc 1