Honble CHOPRA, J.—In this case, respondent No.1 Shri R.N. Bishnoi has filed an application that His Excellency the President of India has dissolved the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly vide Notification dated December 15, 1992 published in Rajasthan Gazette Extraordinary dated December 15, 1992 and, therefore, this election petition should be dismissed as having become infructuous.

(2) This election petition is based on the fact that certain irregularities have been committed in the counting. Certain votes which were cast in favour of the petitioner Shri Narendra Singh Bhati have been wrongly counted in favour of respondent No.l and certain votes which were cast in favour of the petitioner have been wrongly rejected and certain votes which were cast in favour of the petitioner were put in the rack of the respondent. Keeping in view all these irregularities in counting, the petitioner made a request for recount of the votes but that request was illegally rejected by the Returning Officer. The petitioner has, therefore, prayed that inspection, scrutiny and recount of all the ballot papers of Osian (189) Legislative Assembly Constituency of Rajasthan be allowed and the election of respondent No.l Shri R.N. Bishnoi as a returned candidate from the aforesaid Constituency be declared null and void and the same be set aside. He has further prayed that on the basis of inspection, scrutiny, and recount of the ballot papers, it be declared that the petitioner has received the majority of valid votes and it is he, who is a returned candidate for the Osian (189) Rajasthan Legislative Assembly Constituency.

(3) A return was filed on behalf of respondent No.l. Thereafter, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 15.3.1991:

"1. Whether on the basis of the facts alleged in the Election Petition, the petitioner is entitled for recounting of votes?

2. To what relief, the petitioner is entitled?"

(4) The contention of the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.l is that His Excellency the President of India has now dissolved the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly and, therefore, no useful purpose will be served by declaring the election of respondent No. 1 as null and void and further, the relief that the petitioner be declared elected to the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly has also become redundant because the Assembly stands dissolved and nobody can be declared elected to the dissolved Assembly. Moreover, no specific allegations about the malafides or corrupt practices have been specifically pleaded against any body and, therefore, this election petition has become infructuous and so, it should be dismissed as having become infructuous because no live issue now remains to be determined.

(5) In support of this contention, Mr. L.R. Mehta, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.l has placed reliance on a decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court in Loknath vs. Birendra Kumar (1) wherein it has been held as under:

"It is a well settled practice recognised and followed in India that if an issue is purely academic and that its decision one way or the other would have no impact on the position of the parties, it would be waste of public time and indeed not proper exercise of authority for the Court to engage itself in deciding it.

Where an appeal, in an election petition case in which the election of the successful candidate to the Orissa Legislative Assembly was challenged under s. 9A of the Act on the ground that the elected candidate was disqualified to be a candidate on the date of nomination was pending and during its pendency the Assembly was dissolved, it was held that due to the dissolution, it became wholly academic to consider whether the elected candidate was disqualified on the date of nomination. The decision would not have any effect on any of the parties and hence, it was futile to proceed with the appeal and decide it on merits. Their lordships further remarked that the position would be

Click Here to Read the rest of this document