JUDGMENT

Petitioners have sought for a direction to consider Ext.P7 by the second respondent [wrongly mentioned as Ext.P6 in the relief portion of the writ petition].

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that during the pendency of this writ petition, the second respondent passed appropriate orders on Ext.P7, which was challenged in Crl.M.C.No.946/2026 and the said order has even been set aside, with a direction to reconsider it, in a time bound manner.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, in view of the said order, this writ petition has become infructuous.

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed as infructuous, leaving open all contentions to be raised before the second respondent.

sd/-