- (1.) BY way of this intra-court appeal, the appellants seek to question the order dated 27.08.2012 as passed in CWP No. 11215/2009 whereby the learned Single Judge of this Court has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent; and has quashed the order dated 20.11.2009, whereby the appellants had withdrawn the nomination of the respondent to the office of Chairperson of the Rajasthan Bhoodan Yagna Board.
(2.) IN the order impugned, the learned Single Judge has directed as under:- "In view of the discussion above, the writ petition succeeds, it is hereby allowed. The impugned notification dated 20.11.09 withdrawing the nomination of the petitioner from the post of Chairman of Rajasthan Bhoodan Yagna Board made vide notification dated 4.10.08, is quashed. The petitioner shall continue as Chairman of Rajasthan Bhoodan Yagna Board till the expiry of his tenure unless removed from the office earlier in accordance with law. Needless to say that the petitioner shall be permitted to assume the charge of the office of the Chairman of the Board forthwith. No order as to costs." This appeal, filed on 20.09.2012, came up for consideration before a co-ordinate Bench on 01.11.2012 and after supplying the copy of the paper-book to the learned counsel appearing for the respondent in caveat, the matter was ordered to be listed today. Today, while taking up the matter for admission, we have posed the question to the learned counsel for the parties about survival of the cause of action in the present matter because, admittedly, the order nominating the writ petitioner (the respondent herein) as the Chairperson of Rajasthan Bhoodan Yagna Board was issued on 04.10.2008 and the nomination had specifically been for a period of 4 years. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent in caveat frankly submits that under the order dated 04.10.2008, the term of the office of Chairperson of the Board had been of 4 years; and that term is already over. In the given fact situation, the issues sought to be raised in this intra-court appeal are rendered rather academic for the reason that the term as available to the respondent for the office of the Chairperson of the Rajasthan Bhoodan Yagna Board under the said order dated 04.10.2008 is already over and that cannot be revived or continued. Now, and for all practical purposes, the writ petition as filed by the respondent could only be treated as infructuous.
(3.) THE learned Additional Advocate General submits that though the cause in the writ petition as such does not appear surviving and for that reason, this intra-court appeal could also be treated as infructuous but then, the observations as made in the order impugned might cause prejudice to the appellants in any other case or dispute of similar nature because such observations could be treated as being of precedent. In this regard, suffice is to observe that when the writ petition is being treated as infructuous and we are not entering into the merits of the case, dismissal of this intra-court appeal shall not be treated as our expression of any opinion on the views expressed by the learned Single Judge either way. In other words, it shall be open for the parties concerned, if any occasion so arise in future, to make their submissions before the Court in accordance with law. Subject to the observations foregoing, the writ petition leading to this intra-court appeal, and this appeal itself, are treated as infructuous; and this appeal stands dismissed as such.;