THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.323 OF 2011 BETWEEN: Sampat Vinayaka Non-Government Employees Welfare Society, regd No.157, D.No.31-36-288, Rajivnagar, Kurmannapalem, Visakhapatnam Rep. by its President Karri Chandra Shekar, S/o. Suryanarayana, R/o. D.No.31-36-288, Rajivnagar, Kurmannapalem Visakhapatnam PETITIONER And The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam, reptd. By its Commissioner. RESPONDENT Counsel for the petitioner: Smt. N.P. Anjanadevi Counsel for the respondents. Sri N. Ranga Reddy The Court made the following. ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondent. The petitioner is challenging the tender notification bearing IFB No.15/2010/11/S.E (W & OC)/E.E-Mech/DB, dated 01.01.2011 for awarding contract in respect of toeing vehicles for the purpose of clearing the traffic in the Visakhapatnam, as illegal. The Writ Petition has been filed on the premise that earlier notification dated 22.03.2010 was issued for the same purpose and the petitioner has offered the lowest bid. The respondent instead of awarding the contract to the petitioner has again issued the impugned notification even without cancelling the earlier tender. The learned standing counsel Sri N. Ranga Reddy, on instructions, submits that although the petitioner was the lowest bidder in the earlier notification, it did not pursue further and also withdrew the EMD offered pursuant to the said tender notification. It is therefore contended that the petitioner cannot make any complaint as regards the impugned notification. When the matter was heard on 18.01.2011, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought for time to verify whether the petitioner had withdrawn the EMD. On request, the matter is posted today for orders. Today, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the petitioner had withdrawn the EMD. In the circumstances as the petitioner had withdrawn the EMD and did not pursue the matter, the relief sought for by the petitioner in this writ petition cannot be granted. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 1st February, 2011 Js.