Shri Shivdas Gopi Usapkar, Shri Swapnil Vilas Shirodkar and Mrs. Maria Charmaine Gonsalves vs The Director, Directorate of Municipal Administration/Urban Development, The State of Goa and The State Election Commission Shri Roopesh R. Mahatme and Shri Durgadas V. Prabhu Vs State of Goa and Others

S.B. Deshmukh, J.—We have heard learned Counsel Mr. N. Sardessai, Adv. or Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Mr. V.P. Thali, for Respondent No. 3.

The Petitioner challenges the notification dated 01st September, 2005 with Corrigendum dated 09th September, 2005. The Notification and Corrigendum concerned are at Annexure A & B. We have perused these documents.

The Notification in question has been issued by the Director, Administration Urban Development in exercise of the powers u/s (1) of Section 10 of the Goa Municipalities Act, 1968 ( for short ''the said Act'') read with Section 9 of the said Act. The Notification purpose was for the reservation of the seats for women pertaining to election of Mapusa Municipal Council. We have also considered the Corrigendum which is placed on record. The Counsel present before the Court agree that the election in question has taken place and term of the same is also over. In view of this the writ petition has become infructuous. Writ Petition stands disposed of being infructuous with no order as to costs.

In relation to W.P. 371 of 2005 we have heard the leaned counsel for the Respondents. This Writ Petition pertains to election of Margao Municipal Council. The Counsel for the parties agree that except this all other facts are similar to Writ Petition No. 376 of 2005. In other words, by lapse of time the election is taken place and term of election concerned had been over. In view of this, Writ Petition has become infructuous. Writ Petition stands disposed of being infructuous with no order as to costs.