IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P No. : 4702 of 2009 Decided on : 09.08.2010. ___________________________________________________________ M/s Farm Fresh Foods Pvt. Ltd. …….. Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board and another …… Respondents ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mrs. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Trilok Jamwal, Advocate. _________________________________________________________________ R.B. Misra, Judge (oral). The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- a) A writ of certiorari may kindly be issued quashing the tender notice at annexure P-20 w.r.t. inviting tenders for 8 mtr joined PCC Poles and 9 mtr long PCC Poles. b) A writ of mandamus may kindly be issued for supplying purchase order upon petitioner w.r.t 8 mtr jointed and 9 mtr long PCC poles for Kandrori in terms of annexure P-10 dated 4.1`2.2008 under tender notice 3/2007. c) A writ of certiorari may kindly be issued for quashing the illegal and unconstitutional eligibility condition incorporated in annexure P-20 w.r.t. non pendency of any arbitration/court cases against the respondents on behalf of 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 the bidders, as a condition precedent for participating in the tender process. d) Respondents may kindly be directed to produce entire record of the case. 2. This Court vide order dated 18.12.2009, was pleased to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to participate in the tender process invited vide Annexure P-20 without insisting to comply with condition No. 3 indicated therein. The petitioner has filed CMP No. 7238 of 2010, submitting that the petitioner has been allowed to supply 1804 PCC poles, as indicated at Sr. No. 5 of Annexure C-1 enclosed with the application and the petitioner has also been permitted to complete the work as indicated at Sr. No.5 of the document at page 11 and also by way of Annexure C- 2 at page 12, attached with the application. As prayed for, the application is taken on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that in view of such allocation of work to the petitioner, cause of action does not survive and the writ petition has become infructuous. As such, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. 3. In view of disposal of main petition, pending CMP(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Copy Dasti. (R.B. Misra) Judge. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. 9th August, 2010. (lsp)