C. V. JANI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners-Company which once carried on the business of manufacturing and printing textiles at its factory in Kalol, District Mehsana, has challenged by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the condition imposed by the respondents namely, the Gujarat Electricity Board, and the Executive engineer of the Gujarat Electricity Board, that the power supply to the petitioncr- company Mill would be reconnected only after the undertaking in writing is furnished by the petitioner-company to pay full wages to the labourers during the period of disconnection. The petitioners have made it specific that they are not challenging disconnection of power supply, but they are only challenging the aforesaid condition. ( 2 ) THE impugned condition is contained in the letter Annexure-C dated 20-1-84 addressed by the Industries, Mines and Power Department of the Government of Gujarat to the Additional Chief Engineer (General), Gujarat Electricity Board, Baroda, a copy whereof is forwarded to the Executive Engineer (Oandm), G. E. B. , Kalol. A reference is made in this letter to the request made by the petitioner-Company to disconnect the power supply from 22-1-84 to 24-1-84 for violation of restriction of demand cut for the third time. The Government directed disconnection with effect from 7. 00 A. M. of 22-1-84 for a period of 72 hrs. excluding staggering holiday on condition that the petitioner-Company furnishes an undertaking that the full wages are paid to the labourers during the period of disconnection and provisions of the factory Act 1948 are followed. This was followed by a consequential letter dated 1-2-82 by the executive Engineer (Oandm) to the petitioner-Company. The petitioner, therefore, approached this court on 3rd February 1984 with a prayer to exercise its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution of India. ( 3 ) WHEN the matter was circulated for admission the court initially passed the following order on 3rd February, 1984:"notice to the respondents returnable on 20-2-1984. Ad- Interim relief in terms of Para 13 (c ). ( 3 ) WHEN the matter was circulated for admission the court initially passed the following order on 3rd February, 1984:"notice to the respondents returnable on 20-2-1984. Ad- Interim relief in terms of Para 13 (c ). " ( 4 ) IN Para-13 (c) the petitioners prayed for restraining the respondents namely the g. E. B. and its Executive Engineer from implementing the condition imposed as per the letters Annexure-C dated 20-1-84 and Annexurc-E dated 1-2-84, during the pendency of the petition, and also prayed for a direction to the respondents to restore the power supply to the petitioner-Company after expiry of 72 hours. ( 5 ) AN affidavit-in-reply was filed by the Executive Engineer on 23rd February, 1984, to which the petitioner No. 2 Manager of the Petitioner-Company responded by filing a rejoinder. He also filed an additional affidavit. The matter was adjourned from time to time, and ultimately it was admitted on 5-4-84, but ad-interim relief granted earlier was vacated. Hence no interim relief is in force since 5th April, 1984. ( 6 ) WHEN the matter is placed before me for final hearing it appears from the record of company petition No. 163/89 that the petitioner-Company was ordered to be wound up on December 22, 1989 in view of the fact that the attempt made by the Board for industrial and Financial Reconstruction to revive the Company completely failed. The official Liquidator was directed to take charge of the Companys assets and records. The official Liquidator is not brought on record of this petition in place of the petitioner No. 1 company. However, Mr. Brij Kishore who is official liquidator appointed by the court by its order dated December 22, 1989 in Company petition No. 163/89, is present in the court and states that the Factory at Kalol has never worked after he took possession of the factory premises pursuant to the High Court; order of winding up. One Mr. K. R. Taviad serving as an Assistant in the Industries and Mines Department, who is kept present by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, also states that the factory has completely seized to work since the year 1987, and that it was not working on the date of winding up, nor thereafter. The question of reconnection of power supply, therefore, would not arise in the present case. The question of reconnection of power supply, therefore, would not arise in the present case. ( 7 ) THE result is that the petition becomes infructuous due to subsequent development: nothing is pointed by the concerned Advocates to show that the petition survives, and that it requires to be decided on merit even though the matter was placed on Board for final hearing as far back as on 5-12-94. ( 8 ) RULE is, therefore, discharged with no order as to costs. .