Writ petitions challenging a scheduled election were dismissed as infructuous after the poll date passed.

The petitioners filed three connected writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

One sought to prevent the second respondent from conducting an election scheduled for 19 October 2025; another challenged a communication dated 30 September 2025; and the third challenged revised guidelines issued by the Union Bank of India.

The High Court recorded that no interim order had been granted and dismissed the petitions on 21 September 2026.

1. Whether the petition seeking to prevent the election scheduled for 19 October 2025 had become infructuous after the scheduled date passed without an interim order

2. Whether the connected petitions challenging the communication and revised guidelines should also be dismissed as infructuous

The Court applied the procedural principle that a writ petition may be dismissed as infructuous where the relief sought has lost practical effect because the relevant event has passed.

The petitions invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, but the Court did not discuss their substantive scope or rely on any statute or precedent in its order.

The Court noted that the election the petitioners sought to restrain was scheduled for 19 October 2025 and that no interim order had been made in the petitions.

Since the scheduled date had passed by the time the Court considered the matter, it treated the petitions as having been rendered infructuous and dismissed them.

The order does not separately analyse the challenges to the communication or revised guidelines.

The Court disposed of any pending applications.

It made no substantive determination on the validity of the challenged communication or revised guidelines.