The court upheld the validity of a subsequent notification affecting disqualification status in local elections.

JUDGMENT

This Writ Petition (C) is filed seeking the following reliefs:

" i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, directing the 3^rd respondent to quash the Exhibit P6 as far as the petitioner concerned.

ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, directing the 3^rd respondent to remove the petitioner’s name from the disqualified candidates list published in Exhibit P6 and considers Exhibit P3, Exhibit P5 and Exhibit P9.

iii. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 3^rd respondents to remove the petitioner’s name from the Exhibit P6 and declare the petitioner is qualified to participate in the local body election 2025. iv. Pass such other order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice."

[SIC]

2. When this writ petition came up for consideration on 14.11.2025, this Court passed the following order:

" Admit.

The learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for respondents 4 to 6. The learned Standing Counsel takes notice for respondents 2 and 3. Issue urgent notice to 1^st respondent.

After hearing the counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel for the respondent, I think an interim order can be passed in this case. Therefore, Ext.P6 order is stayed, as far as the petitioner is concerned, which is mentioned as Serial No. 2431. "

3. Today, when the matter came up for consideration, the Standing Counsel appearing for the Election Commission submitted that a subsequent notification has been issued by the Election Commission, deleting the name of the petitioner from Ext.P6 as per notification No.78/2025/SEC dated 17.11.2025. If that is the case, this writ petition need not be retained here.

Recording the submission of the Standing Counsel for the Election Commission, this writ petition is closed.

Sd/-