AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.M. Kumar, J.—This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges order dated 31.01.2001. Annexure P-4 vide which the respondent-department cancelled the transfer of the petitioner from Patiala to Ludhiana. The writ petition when (sic) up for hearing on 5.2.2001, the Division Bench stayed the operation of the aforementioned order. Thereafter the writ petition was admitted on 6.3.2001 and the stay was allowed to continue. On 1.2.2003 when the matter came up for hearing it was stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he may not be displaced in midterm and the matter may be taken up in March, in order to avoid any inconvenience. Accordingly the petition was posted for hearing for today.
At the hearing today. I find that stay order passed by this Court on 5.02.2001 has remained in operation for over 2 years and the purpose of the writ petitioner has been served. The petitioner has enjoyed the stay order for over two years. No useful purpose would now be served by adjudicating upon the legality of order dated 31.1.2001 Annexure P-4 as has also been agreed by both the learned counsel. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of leaving the respondents free to pass any order for utilising the services of the petitioner as well as respondent No. 5 at any appropriate place in public interest.