WP(C) 2084/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Dr. A K Saraf, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner. Al so heard Mr. D Saikia, learned standing counsel for the Health Department who ap pears for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3. The petitioner had filed it’s tender in response to the tender notice issued by the Director of Medical Education (Annexure A) for supply and installation of Po sitron Emission Tomography (PET-CT) & Medical Cyclotron. Petitioner challenges the manner in which the Tender Committee was evaluating th e rival tenders. By this Court’s order dated 27.5.2009, information was sought on the status of t he 2 representations filed by the petitioner on 25.4.2009 and 19.5.2009. Dr. Saraf, learned counsel for the petitioner today produces a copy of the commu nication dated 29.5.2009, addressed to the writ petitioner whereby it is indicat ed that the representations of the petitioner are to be considered in the next m eeting of the Competent Committee constituted for evaluating the tenders. Mr. Saikia, learned standing counsel for the Health Department submits that the representations of the petitioner would be considered on merit. In view of above, I am not inclined to keep this writ petition pending, as final decision on the grievances of the petitioner and also on the Tenders are yet to be taken by the competent Authority. Accordingly, this petition is closed to enable the competent authority to take a decision in the tender process by also taking note of the grievances raised by the petitioners through their representations. Any party, aggrieved by the final decision, would naturally be at liberty to cha llenge such decision. A copy of the communication dated 29.5.2009 of the Director of Medical Education is kept in the record.