CWP No. 2074 of 2007 31.7.2008 Present: Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr.J.K.Verma, Dy. Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Mr. Baldev Singh, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3. Mr.K.D.Shreedhar, Advocate, for respondent No.4. The petitioner herein has prayed for quashing of Letter of Intent issued to respondent No.4 for setting up of Hydro Power Projects of 480 MW each at Jangi Thopan and Thopan Powari in District Kinnaur, H.P. and also for a prayer of mandamus that respondents No.1 to 3 i.e. State be directed to issue Letter of Intent in favour of the petitioner. This Court on 3rd June, 2008 had observed that the State Government had filed various contradictory affidavits. The matter was adjourned to enable the State to take a decision and place it on record through an affidavit of the Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. The said decision was to be without prejudice to the rights of the parties. Initially the petition was being opposed by the State Government, but, however, now the State Government has changed its stand and in view of subsequent decisions so taken by the State Government, it is contended by the learned Advocate General as also learned counsel for the private respondent that the present petition has 2 become infructuous. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner is of the view that keeping in view the orders dated 3.6.2008 and also the averments contained in paras 10 and 11 of the petition, it is not so. The State Government, through affidavit dated 8.7.2008 filed by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh as also the affidavit dated 17.7.2008 of Special Secretary, MPP & Power, to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, has now placed on record a decision at the highest level (Cabinet), wherein it has been so decided that a show cause notice be issued to the private respondent No.4 asking as to why the allotment in question be not cancelled for misrepresenting and giving wrong facts to the State Government with regard to its technical and financial competence and also as to why the upfront money be not forfeited. It has also been decided that after the final decision the State shall re-advertise the projects inviting fresh bids. Importantly, the State has clarified that the Vigilance inquiry against the private respondent shall continue separately and action against erring official for not having correctly evaluated the projects shall be taken. This decision has not been assailed by any of the parties before us. We do not intend to go into the merits of the matter in view of subsequent developments and are of the considered view that the present writ petition has become infructuous. Since we have not gone into the merits of the matter and expressed our opinion on the same, it shall always be open for the 3 petitioner to assail any order passed by the State Government of which the petitioner may be aggrieved of. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications. (Jagdish Bhalla), C.J. 31st July, 2008 (Sanjay Karol), J. (C)