JUDGMENT :

Dinesh Mehta, J

(DBSAW No.1662/2018) :

1. The present intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 19.09.2018, passed by learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant has been dismissed as having become infructuous.

2. Mr. A.K. Rajvanshi, learned counsel for the appellant, inviting attention of the Court towards prayer clause in the writ petition contended that the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant had not been rendered infructuous inasmuch as there were many prayers and the same would survive qua these prayers. It would not be out of place to reproduce the prayer clause of the appellant’s writ petition, which reads thus :-

“(i) That the order dated 04.09.2017 (Annexure-7) passed by respondent no.1 may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(ii) That the order dated 13.09.2017 (Annexure-8) may kindly be quashed and set aside and the objection of the petitioner for rejecting the nomination form may kindly be allowed.

(iii) That the nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of respondent no.4 (Annexure-9) may kindly be rejected and the election of respondent no.4 may kindly be declared void and illegal and may be quashed and thereafter the respondents may kindly be directed to take necessary consequential steps.

(iv) Any other relief/relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner in the interest of justice.

(v) Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner.”

3. Briefly narrating the facts of the case, Mr. Rajvanshi stated that while exercising the powers under Section 39 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, the Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur vide its order dated 29.08.2017 debarred respondent No.4 - Babu Lal Choudhary from contesting the election for the next five years, as he had issued illegal ‘pattas’ in violation of the rules.

4. Subsequent thereto, respondent No.4 – Babu Lal Choudhary filed the nomination paper for contesting the election for the post of Sarpanch, which was objected to by the petitioner. However, petitioner’s objection was rejected by the returning officer vide its order dated 13.09.2017, in light of the order of the State Government dated 04.09.2017, vide which the debarment order of the respondent No.4 had been stayed.

5. Coming to know that against the order aforesaid passed by the Divisional Commissioner, the respondent No.4 - Babu Lal Choudhary preferred a revision petition before the respondent No.1 and vide an order dated 04.09.2017, effect and operation of the above referred order of the Divisional Commissioner had been stayed, the appellant preferred the writ petition (SB Civil Writ Petition No.14190/2017) challenging the order dated 04.09.2017 passed by the State Government, staying the effect and operation of the order of the Divisional Commissioner, vide which the respondent No.4 had been debarred for a period of five years to contest the election.

6. Learned counsel further stated that during the pendency of the writ petition, the respondent No.4 moved an application for withdrawal of his revision petition and the same came to be dismissed as withdrawn.

7. When the writ petition came up for consideration before learned Single Judge, and the factum of withdrawal of the revision petition by the respondent No.4 was brought to his notice, learned Single Judge was of the view that since the revision petition itself has been withdrawn, the petitioner’s grievance against the order dated 04.09.2017 does not survive and the writ petition has thus become infructuous.

8. Challenging the order of learned Single Judge, Mr. Rajvanshi contended that the appellant had also made a prayer that the rejection of petitioner’s objection by the returning officer was incorrect, whereas the acceptance of nomination paper of respondent No.4 was illegal and irregular. Learned counsel submitted that these questions were required to