A writ petition seeking the conduct of elections becomes infructuous and is liable to be dismissed if the elections have already been conducted and subsequent terms completed during the pendency of the litigation, rendering the relief academic.

ORDER :

The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief :

“…to declare the action of the respondents in not conducting elections to the Sarapaka Gram Panchayat in spite of completion of tenure of 5 years along with other Gram Panchayats for which the respondents are taking steps to conduct elections and not including the name of Sarapaka Gram Panchayat in the list of Gram Panchayats and taking steps to issue Election Schedule is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Article 243 E and 243K and consequently direct the respondent to include the Sarapaka Gram Panchayat in the list of Gram Panchayats for conducting elections in the ensuing elections.…”

Heard Sri Raj Gopal, learned counsel representing Sri PV Ramana, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.Ashok Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader, representing Mrs.Shazia Parveen, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development and Mrs.Vrinda Agarwal, learned counsel representing Sri P.Sudheer Rao, learned standing counsel for State Election Commission of Telangana. None appeared for respondent No.2.

The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner, a former two-term President of Sarapaka Gram Panchayat, challenges the action of the State authorities in excluding the said Gram Panchayat from the list of 12,791 Gram Panchayats scheduled for elections in Telangana, despite completion of its five-year tenure on 31-07-2018. It is contended that while elections are being conducted to other Gram Panchayats, Sarapaka has been arbitrarily omitted, allegedly due to proposed steps to upgrade it into a Municipality. The petitioner asserts that such exclusion is illegal, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 243E and 243K of the Constitution of India, which mandate timely conduct of Panchayat elections by the State Election Commission. The petitioner therefore seeks a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to include Sarapaka Gram Panchayat in the election schedule and conduct elections along with other Gram Panchayats.

The learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the present writ petition has become infructuous and is liable to be dismissed as such. It is contended that the grievance of the petitioner relates to non-inclusion of Sarapaka Gram Panchayat in the earlier election schedule. However, subsequent to the filing of the Writ Petition, elections have been duly conducted and two successive terms of elections have already been completed. In view of the subsequent developments, the relief sought by the petitioner has become purely academic and no effective adjudication is required at this stage. As there is no surviving cause of action, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed as infructuous. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner conceded the same.

In view of the submissions made and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the grievance of the petitioner pertains to the alleged non-conducting of elections to Sarapaka Gram Panchayat after expiry of its earlier tenure. However, it is not in dispute that subsequent to filing of the present Writ Petition, elections have been conducted and two successive terms have already been completed. In light of these subsequent developments, the relief sought in the writ petition no longer survives for consideration. Since no effective or meaningful relief can now be granted, the cause of action does not subsist.

In the result, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to the costs. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand dismissed.