JUDGMENT : Nirzar S. Desai, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Ms. Mamta Vyas for the petitioner, learned advocate Mr. Meet Shah and learned advocate Mr. R. D. Kinariwala for the private respondents and learned AGP Ms. Nirali Sarda for the respondent – State. 2. With the consent of the parties and as the petitioner and private respondents have buried their past and grudged against eachother, with the consent of everyone, the matter was taken up finally. Hence, RULE. Learned advocates waive service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respective parties. 3. In the nutshell, it is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is a Trust and the respondent no. 8 who is a physically handicapped person was once upon a time serving in the school but thereafter, she was declared surplus and thereafter, she was posted in the Jaimanben Dave & Sheth Shri Hirabhai Girls School, Maninagar, Ahmedabad. Considering the physical disability of the respondent no. 8, after having declared surplus, when she was placed in respondent no. 7 – School, she found that there is no lift facility in the respondent no.7 – School and therefore, she could not join in respondent no. 7 – School and thereafter, she was ordered to be absorb by the D.E.O. in the school run by the petitioner but by that time, the aforesaid school was closed down and therefore, she was absorbed in the office of the District Education Officer. In the meantime, she preferred a complaint before the Court of Commissioner for physically disabled person under the provision of Right of persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and after hearing the parties, the Court of Commissioner passed an order dated 23.05.2022 initiated an inquiry against the petitioner and their trustees and principal for physically harassing the respondent no. 8 and directed that the report be placed before the Commission within a period of 90 days. It was also observed in the order that in case of continues harassment, the Court shall proceed against the petitioner for Atrocities or any other offence. 4. The petitioner has by way of this petition challenged the aforesaid order dated 23.05.2022 and has also challenged the order dated 02.07.2020 whereby the respondent no. 8 was posted in the petitioner’s school as the Higher Secondary section of the school has already been closed down by that time. 5. Today, learned advocate Ms. 4. The petitioner has by way of this petition challenged the aforesaid order dated 23.05.2022 and has also challenged the order dated 02.07.2020 whereby the respondent no. 8 was posted in the petitioner’s school as the Higher Secondary section of the school has already been closed down by that time. 5. Today, learned advocate Ms. Mamta Vyas appearing for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Kinariwala have in one voice submitted before this Court that now the petitioner and respondent no. 8 do not have any grievance against each other and on account of pendency of this petition, the petitioner and respondent no. 8 both are suffering, as the respondent no. 8’s retiral benefits are not released in her favour only on account of pendency of this petition as the matter is subjudice before the Court. 6. Learned advocate Ms. Vyas submitted that though the impugned order is stayed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.06.2022, due to pendency of this petition, there is a hanging sword on the Trustees and principal of the school and in view of the fact that now the respondent no. 8 has already been retired and considering the fact that the respondent no. 8 and the petitioner have buried the past have resolved the inter-say dispute between them and have decided to move on, in case if the petition is not decided in favour of the petitioner and the original order dated 23.05.2022 is implemented then also the same would result into a futile exercise in view of respondent no. 8 ‘s unwillingness to proceed further with her complaint and to participate in the inquiry as per the order dated 23.05.2022. 7. Learned advocate Mr. Kinariwala, today has made a statement before this Court, upon instructions from the respondent no. 8 that she does not want to proceed further in respect of her complaint and she does not want to participate in any of the inquiry that is ordered pursuant to the order dated 23.05.2022 and she does not have any objection, if the impugned order dated 23.05.2022 as well as order dated 02.07.2020 are quashed and set aside, considering the fact that she has already been retired upon attaining the age of superannuation and on account of pendency of this petition, she is denied her retiral and pensionary benefits. 8. In view of above, both the learned advocate Ms. 8. In view of above, both the learned advocate Ms. Vyas as well as learned advocate Mr. Kinariwala have prayed for quashing and setting aside both the impugned orders dated 23.05.2022 and 02.07.2020. 9. Learned advocate Mr. Meet Shah submitted that he is only a formal party in this petition as the outcome of the petition will not affect the respondent no. 7 whom he represents. 10.Learned AGP Ms. Nirali Sarda appearing for the respondent – State submitted that at one point of time, the only upon the complaint made by the respondent no. 8, the proceedings under the Right of persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, the proceedings were commenced before the Court of Commissioner for disabled person and it is only upon the insistence and application of the present respondent no. 8 that the proceedings were initiated and impugned order was passed and therefore, the State has passed the order impugned dated 23.05.2022 only with a view to ensure that the provision of Right of persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 are stricto sensu complied with and therefore, though the State would insist to vacate the interim relief and to allow the State to proceed further in respect of order dated 23.05.2022, this Court by recording the resistance of the State may consider the grievance of the petitioner in light of the fact that it was the respondent no. 8 who was responsible for initiation of the proceedings under Right of persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and the State has only acted in a bonafide manner and therefore, no fault can be found with the order impugned. She, therefore, prayed for dismissal of this petition. 11.I have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the record. On perusal of the record, I found that the proceedings under the Right of persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 was initiated upon an application/ complaint made by the respondent no. 8 against the petitioner and the order impugned dated 23.05.2022 was passed just to ensure that the grievance of the respondent no. 8 is redressed and the provision of Right of persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 is strict o-sensu complied with. 12.Today, the complainant i.e. respondent no. 8 who is before this Court represented by learned advocate Mr. Kinariwala has in no uncertain terms, upon instructions, stated before the Court that the respondent no. 8 is redressed and the provision of Right of persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 is strict o-sensu complied with. 12.Today, the complainant i.e. respondent no. 8 who is before this Court represented by learned advocate Mr. Kinariwala has in no uncertain terms, upon instructions, stated before the Court that the respondent no. 8 does not want to go ahead with the proceedings of the inquiry as per the order dated 23.05.2022. She has also been retired from the services and though the order impugned dated 23.05.2022 has been passed to secure the rights of disabled person on account of pendency of this petition, her retiral benefits are not paid and therefore, on that count as well as considering the fact that the petitioner and respondent no. 8 have buried the past and settled the inter-say differences and dispute between them and decided to move on, this Court deems it appropriate to quash the impugned order dated 23.05.2022 as well as impugned order dated 02.07.2020 as any inquiry now against the petitioner when the respondent no. 8 herself does not want to participate in it would result into a futile exercise. Accordingly, both the orders dated 23.05.2022 and 02.07.2020 are hereby quashed and set aside. 13.The petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs.