Judgment Heard counsel for the parties. 2. By an order date 12th June 2012 passed by the Secretary, Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Hazaribagh (Respondent No. 3), the shop allotted in the name of the petitioner has been cancelled and she has been directed to vacate the same within a period of seven days on the ground that the petitioner had failed to pay the arrears of rent for more than three months and the shop has been lying closed. 3. Counsel for the petitioner however has assailed the impugned order stating that the authorities do not have any power to dispossess the licencee like the petitioner from the allotted shop in question, though there is some condition in the agreement. It is further submitted that the impugned order does not bear any signature and the petitioner has made a representation after issuance of the show-cause notice and deposited part of the outstanding arrears as well. 4. Respondents in their counter affidavit, have however come up with a stand that the shop in question was cancelled on account of the fact that the petitioner has been in arrears for more than three months and the shop has been remaining closed for quite sometime. After cancellation of the allotment of the shop, the same has been vacated by the Magistrate and the vacant possession thereof was handed over to the Market Committee on 28th July 2012. Thereafter, on publication in the newspaper, total 27 shops have been allotted through the process of lottery amongst the interested persons who had participated in the lottery. The said allotment have been made on 30th July 2012 itself. The shop in question which was allotted in the name of the petitioner has been allotted to one Mohammad Minhaz on 30th July 2012 vide Annexure-A and as such, the writ petition has been rendered infructuous. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the materials on record. It appears that the cause of action for which the petitioner had come before this Court, has been rendered infructuous, in view of the fact that the petitioner has been dispossessed from the shop in question and the said shop along with 26 other shops have been allotted to different persons through the process of lottery published in the newspaper and participation by the interested persons. The said allottee is also not a party in the present writ application. In these circumstances therefore, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.