IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1571 of 2008 (M/S) Jitendra Sah S/o Late Sri J.L. Sah …… Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …. Respondents Mr. P.S. Rawat, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.C. Bisht, Brief Holder for respondents 1 to 3. Mr. P.C. Maulekhi, Advocate for respondent No.4. (Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J.) Heard Mr. P.S. Rawat, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. P.C. Bisht, Brief Holder for respondents 1 to 3 and Mr. P.C. Maulekhi, Advocate for respondent No.4. By means of this petition the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to accept the tenders in accordance with Tender Notice/Letter No. 1351/Su- Lo.Sa.Vi/ dated 4.6.2008, Annexure No.1 to the writ petition. According to the petitioner, he submitted tender for repairing Residential House of Nurses Training Centre Bhawan Nainital. The primary condition of the tender notice was that the earnest money would be deposited in the form of NSC, Post Office Pass Book or any Scheduled Bank and the deposit of earnest money by respondent No.4, in whose favour tender was accepted, was not made in accordance with the condition of tender notice. In counter affidavit, it is stated that the grievance of the petitioner is that it was a condition precedent that the earnest money should be deposited in the Scheduled Bank but the respondent No.4 has not deposited the earnest money in accordance with term of Tender Notice, which is in violation of condition No.6 of the manual, annexed with C.A.1 filed by the State. From perusal of record it reveals that tenders were invited for the work in the year 2006 and the period of completion of work was twelve months. This fact is not disputed that the tender was awarded to respondent No.4 and the work was carried out by respondent No.4. No interim relief has been passed in the present writ petition. Therefore, 2 the prayer sought in the writ petition can not be granted to the petitioner in the year 2010. By afflux of time the writ petition has now rendered infructuous. The writ petition is dismissed being infructuous. Dated: 29-12-2010 (B.S. Verma, J. ) ISB 3