JUDGMENT B.P. Dharmadhikari, J -None appears for petitioner and other private respondents. Ms. N.P. Mehta, learned A.G.P. is present for respondent nos. 1 to 3. 2. Learned A.G.P. points out that the challenge was to rejection of nomination paper of petitioner in election of APMC Tikrora. 3. She submits that not only election then scheduled on 14.07.2004, but, thereafter 2 or 3 more elections must have taken place and therefore, the controversy has become infructuous. 4. With her assistance, we have perused the papers. Division Bench of this Court has on 31.08.2005, observed that elections of office bearers then scheduled on 02.09.2005 would be subject to result of Writ Petition. By earlier order dated 09.07.2004, Division Bench while issuing Rule in the matter granted interim relief in terms of prayer clause (iii), thereby directed acceptance of nomination form of petitioner and allotment of symbol in his favour. 5. Later order dated 31.08.2005 on Civil Application No. 5717/2005, shows that Civil Application was in relation to elections to the post of Chairman and Vice Chairman of said A.P.M.C. due on 02.09.2005. Thus, elections as Directors were already over before 31.08.2005. 6. Writ Petition No. 2701/2004 was heard and on 21.10.2005, an order was passed referring the question "Whether it is necessary for a candidate contesting election from the Constituency as provided under Section 13[1][a][i] and [ii] of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963, to be a voter from that Constituency, apart from he being an agriculturist ?" to Larger Bench. 7. The Larger Bench pronounced its judgment on 21.12.2005 and has answered the question as under : "26. Therefore, after considering the relevant provisions as aforesaid, our answer to the question posed in the reference is as under : It is necessary for a candidate contesting election from the constituency as provided under Section 13[1][a][i] and [ii] of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 to be a voter from the respective constituency from which he is seeking election apart from he being an agriculturist." 8. The matter was then carried in Special Leave Petition. It appears that the Special Leave Petition was lateron withdrawn. 9. In this situation, we find that after directions to accept the nomination paper and participation in the election process by petitioner and due to passage of time, no further orders need to be passed in this petition. Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. It appears that the Special Leave Petition was lateron withdrawn. 9. In this situation, we find that after directions to accept the nomination paper and participation in the election process by petitioner and due to passage of time, no further orders need to be passed in this petition. Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. Rule discharged. No costs.