SHIVDAS GOPI USAPKAR AND ORS Vs. DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION/URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard learned Counsel Mr. N. Sardessai, Adv. or Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Mr. V.P. Thali, for Respondent No. 3.

(2.) 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.

(3.) The Notification in question has been issued by the Director, Administration Urban Development in exercise of the powers under section (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 infructious with no order as to costs.