ORDER 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 21.12.2001 (Annexure P/3) and 29.07.2003 passed by the respondent No.1 and further, to disqualify the respondent No.2 to 13 from the membership of Chhattisgarh Legislative Assembly and also to disqualify them from contesting the ensuing assembly elections for the period of six years. 2. The petitioner, who was the member of Chhattisgarh Legislative Assembly and leader of opposition, at the relevant time, has filed the instant petition challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 21.12.2001 (Annexure P/3) passed by the respondent No.1 upon the representation of the respondent No. 2 to 13 dated 20.12.2001 (Annexure P/1) and also by two other MLAs viz. Charan Singh Manjhi and Rajindra Pal Singh to the Speaker, Chhattisgarh Legislative Assembly to register a new party formed by them as "Chhattisgarh Vikas Party" and also the order dated 29.07.2003 (Annexure P/11) passed by the respondent No. 1 on the application made by the petitioner, on 18.06.2002 (Annexure P/9) which was also rejected by order dated 29.07.2003 (Annexure Pill) by the respondent No.1 as Chairman of the Tribunal, holding that the respondents, as aforestated, have not violated the provisions of Schedule 10 of the Constitution. 3. The facts, in brief, are that 12 members, excluding Charan Singh Manjhi and Rajindar Pal Singh gave up the membership of the Bharatiya Janta Party (for short 'the BJP') and formed a separate party with other two members as aforestated, namely 'Chhattisgarh Vikas Party' and the Speaker of the Chhattisgarh Legislative Assembly recognized their party as a separate political party. Thereafter, the party merged with the Congress party immediately which was also recognized by the order dated 21.12.2001 under the provisions of para 2 sub para 1(a) of the 10th Schedule of the Constitution of India. The petitioner filed an application under Rule 6 of the Chhattisgarh Disqualification Rules, 1986. The same was dismissed by the Speaker/Chairman on 29.07.2003. Thus, the order is illegal and unconstitutional. 4. It is submitted that out of 90 seats of Chhattisgarh Legislative Assembly, 35 members were of BJP and 45 seats belonged to Indian National Congress (for short 'the Congress') party. The respondent No.2 to 13 formed a new political party and made representation to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly to recognize the newly formed party by representation dated 20.12.2001 (Annexure P/l). The respondent No.2 to 13 formed a new political party and made representation to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly to recognize the newly formed party by representation dated 20.12.2001 (Annexure P/l). The said party was subsequently merged with the Congress Party. The Speaker has passed the order on the representation on 21.12.2001 (Annexure P/3) without affording any opportunity of hearing to the BJP. Thereafter, the petition was filed by the petitioner which was also rejected subsequently by impugned order dated 29.07.2003 (Annexure Pill). 5. The main ground of challenge before this Court is that there is violation of 10th Schedule of the Constitution. Paragraph 4' defines that violation of paragraph 3 of the 10th Schedule dealing with the disqualification of a member of the House. 6. After the impugned order was passed, two assembly elections have taken place i.e. first in the month of November, 2003 and the second in the month of November, 2008. The third election is also due in November, 2013. 7. Paragraph 3 was omitted by the Constitution (Ninety-First Amendment) Act, 2003 w.e.f. 01.01.2004. The respondents Nos. 2 to 13 have already completed their tenure and thereafter, two elections, as afore stated have also taken place. The entire matter has become academic and as such, going into the question as to whether affording opportunity to the petitioner was essential and also whether the Speaker has exercised its power properly under the provisions of 10th Schedule, have become academic. (See: Rajendra Singh Rana & Others Vs. Swami Prasad Maurya & Others (2007) 4 SCC 270 , para 45). 8. Law in this regard is well settled that if the petition has become infructuous on the facts of the case, the question of law, however important may be, becomes of academic interest which cannot be adjudicated upon. Accordingly, the question of law raised herein may be decided in an appropriate case. (See: Basheshar Nath Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi and Rajasthan and another AIR 1959 SC 149 , Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agrawal Vs. Rajiv Gandhi 1987 (Supp) SCC 93, Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Govt. of India & Others Vs. Cricket Association of Bengal and Others (1995)2 SCC 161 , State of Manipur & Others Vs. Chandan Manihar Singh (1999) 7 SCC 503 , Arnit Das Vs. State of Bihar (2001) 7 SCC 657 and Prakash Singh Badal & Another Vs. Rajiv Gandhi 1987 (Supp) SCC 93, Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Govt. of India & Others Vs. Cricket Association of Bengal and Others (1995)2 SCC 161 , State of Manipur & Others Vs. Chandan Manihar Singh (1999) 7 SCC 503 , Arnit Das Vs. State of Bihar (2001) 7 SCC 657 and Prakash Singh Badal & Another Vs. State of Punjab & Others (2007) 7 SCC 657). 9. This Court, in Tritiya Varg Shaskiya Karmachari Grih Nirman Sahkar Samiti Maryadit Vs. Chhattisgarh Information Commission & Others 2008(2) BLJ 152, while considering the identical issue, observed as under: "12. It is well settled principle of law that the question of law on academic interest cannot be adjudicated upon, the same should be left open for adjudication, whenever the appropriate facts arises." 10. In view of the foregoing, leaving the question of law as involved I hereinabove open, without going into the merits of the case, the petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. 11. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition Dismissed.