- (1.) TWO fold prayers have been made in this writ petition : (i) to quash the office order as contained in let ter No. 351/wad Lipik dated April 9,1992 of the District Magistrate/collector of the District Bulandshahr as contained in An-nexure-1 and communicated to the petitioner stating that vide his order dated 8-4-1992 the District Magistrate has ap pointed Naurang Singh, Advocate (respondent No. 4) as a counsel for Tehsil Siyana for three years in place of Radhey Shyam Sharma, Advocate (the writ petitioner herein); that the services of Sri Radhey Shyam Sharma, Advocate has been terminated; and that Naurang Singh is directed to take over charge from Sri Radhey Shyam Sharma and intimate his joining and ensure his joining report to the office and (ii) to declare the last part of sub- rule (3) of Rule 114of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 as void and command the respon dents not to give effect to so far as the petitioner is concerned. A further prayer has been made to command the respon dents not to interfere in the working of the petitioner as Panel Lawyer of Tehsil Siyana till completion of his three years period of appointment.
(2.) IT may be mentioned that the petitioner has alleged that since respon dent No. 4 belonged to the ruling Bhartiya Janta Party and as such, his appointment, in his place is mala fide and arbitrary. The petitioner has also tried to demonstrate that part of the sub-rule men tioned above is violativc of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 the allega tions of mala fide etc. made have been denied. The cancellation of the appoint ment has also been justified disclosing precisely the reasons for doing so. Respon dent No. 4 has also filed a counter-affidavit denying the allegations. The petitioner has also filed a rejoinder affidavit to the counter-affidavit of respondent No. 4 reiterating his allegations. No rejoinder affidavit, however, has been filed by the petitioner to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3.
(3.) HAVING heard Sri Mahesh Gautam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Sri H. R. Mishra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 and Sri N. C. Rajvanshi, learned counsel appearing on be half of respondent No. 4, this much is clear that the three years tenure appointing respondent No. 4 in place of the petitioner had expired long time back during the pendency of this writ petition. No interim orders were granted in favour of the petitioner to continue him as a Panel Lawyer, which was one of his precise prayers. For the reasons aforementioned, we are of the view that because of efflux of time, this writ petition has become infructuous. It is well known that if a writ petition has become infructuous then academic questions need not be considered by the Court.;