ORDER : VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J. This appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent by the appellant-original petitioner against the order dated 9.8.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 7002 of 2015, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition. 2. The petitioner filed the captioned petition praying for the following reliefs: “8(A) xxxx (B) This Hon'ble Court will be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of prohibition or mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 27.02.2015 at Annexure-F passed by the respondent-Collector, Junagadh. C) This Hon'ble Court will be pleased to restrain and prevent the respondent no. 4 from acting and functioning as Mahant Trustee of Bhavnath Mahadev Temple located at foot mountain of Girnar pursuant to the impugned order at Annexure-F pending hearing and final disposal of this petition and thereby further be pleased to restrain the respondents, their agents, subordinate and superior officers from preventing the petitioner from discharging the functions as Mahant Trustee of Bhavnath Mahadev Temple located at foot mountain, Girnagar, Junagadh in any manner pending hearing and final disposal of this petition. (D) xxx (E) xxx” 3. Thus, from the aforesaid prayer, it is revealed that the petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.2.2015 passed by the respondent-Collector, Junagadh by which the Collector has appointed Mahant Shri Harigiri Maharaj i.e. the respondent no. 4 herein for a period of 18 months i.e. upto 31.8.2016 on purely temporary basis on the terms and conditions mentioned in the said order. 4. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned order dated 9.8.2016, dismissed the petition and therefore the present appeal is filed by the original petitioner. 5. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the term of 18 months is already over on 31.8.2016 and it is informed by the learned advocates appearing for the parties that the Collector has now invited the applications for appointment of Mahant. However, learned advocate Ms. Kruti M Shah appearing for the appellant-original petitioner has made a grievance that the learned Single Judge has observed in the impugned order that Mahant Raghunathgiri had never accepted the petitioner as his ‘chela’ and after late Mahant Raghunathgiri, Rameshgiri and Tansukhgiri have been functioning as Mahant. However, learned advocate Ms. Kruti M Shah appearing for the appellant-original petitioner has made a grievance that the learned Single Judge has observed in the impugned order that Mahant Raghunathgiri had never accepted the petitioner as his ‘chela’ and after late Mahant Raghunathgiri, Rameshgiri and Tansukhgiri have been functioning as Mahant. The aforesaid findings will come in the way of the petitioner while considering the application of the petitioner. 6. As the period for which the respondent no. 4 was appointed by the Collector by the order dated 27.2.2015 is over on 31.8.2016, we are not inclined to examine the issue in the present appeal and therefore the appeal is disposed off as having become infructuous and academic. However, we make it clear that it is open for the petitioner to submit an application to the Collector for considering his case for Mahant and also point out that he is ‘shishya/chela’ of Guru Raghunathgiri and therefore he is entitled to be appointed as Mahant. The Collector shall consider and examine such application without being influenced by any of the observation made by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order dated 9.8.2016 passed in Special Civil Application No. 7002 of 2015. 7. As the Letters Patent Appeal itself is disposed off, no order is required to be passed on Civil Application Nos. 2676 of 2017 and 8412 of 2016. Hence, both the applications stand disposed off.