Writ Petition rendered infructuous upon redressal of grievance regarding liability for stored paddy shortages.

The petitioner, serving as the Incharge of Prathmik Krishi Sakh Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Kikirda, was responsible for paddy procurement during the Kharif year 2025–26

The petitioner alleged that despite multiple representations, the respondent authorities failed to issue timely transport and delivery orders, leading to delayed lifting of stored paddy until April 2026

This delay allegedly caused a reduction in weight and deterioration of the stock

Fearing he would be held personally liable for the shortages, the petitioner filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking directions to exempt him from liability and for an inquiry into the fault of the respondents

1. Whether the respondent authorities should be restrained from holding the petitioner liable for paddy shortages caused by administrative delays in lifting the stock

2. Whether the writ petition survived for adjudication after the petitioner’s grievances were purportedly redressed during the pendency of the litigation

The court exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

The decision was governed by the principle of "mootness" or "infructuousness" in writ jurisdiction, where the court declines to adjudicate a matter if the grievance has been redressed or if the cause of action no longer exists

The court also noted that the paddy lifting process was governed by the applicable state procurement policy and procedure

The court evaluated the current status of the dispute based on submissions from both parties. The petitioner’s counsel admitted that the grievance had been redressed and no cause of action remained for adjudication

This was corroborated by counsel for Respondents No. 4 and 5 (Marketing Federation), who confirmed that the paddy in question had been lifted and no adverse action was being pursued against the petitioner regarding the alleged shortage

Consequently, the court found that since the administrative delay had been corrected and the threat of personal liability had subsided, there was no longer a live controversy requiring judicial intervention

Accordingly, the petition was disposed of with no order as to costs