IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 184 of 2010. M/s Haldwani Lalkuan Dharamkanta Owners Welfare Society, through its Secretary. … Petitioner. Vs. Kshetriya Van Prabandhak, Van Vikas Nigam, Kumaun Region, Haldwani, District Nainital and two others. …Respondents. Mr. M.S.Pal, Senior Advocate with Mr. M.S.Dangi, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Sudhir Singh, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Date October 05, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief:- a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 12-02-2010 passed by respondent No. 1 published in daily newspaper on 13-2-2010 (Annexure No. 2 to the petition). b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to execute the decision of 27- 08-2009 and 17-8-2009, which are annexed as Annexure No. 8 and 9 to the writ petition respectively. c) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to give effect to the impugned order dated 12.02.2010 published in daily newspaper on 13-2-2010 (Annexure No. 2 to the petition). d) Issue any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2 e) Award cost of the petition to the petitioner. The controversy raised in the present writ petition was that the extended period of contract of agreement of the petitioner was to expire on 30-6-2010. Prior to that, on 12-2-2010, the respondents invited new tenders, which has been challenged in this writ petition. This Court vide interim order dated 17-2-2010 directed the respondents not to open the tenders, which were invited by respondent no.1, till next date of listing. It is pertinent to mention here that on 30-6-2010 the extended time granted to the petitioner has also elapsed. Prayer made in the writ petition was for quashing of tender notice issued by the respondent no.1 on 12-2-2010 (Annexure-2 to the petition). Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in the contract agreement, there is a clause that by the consent of parties, the period of contract agreement can be extended. The petitioner has also filed an application, which is pending but without deciding the application of the petitioner, the respondent no. 1 issued a fresh tender notice subsequently. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the respondent-authority himself has cancelled the impugned tender notice and invited new tenders. As such, this writ petition has become infructuous. In the above facts and circumstances, the writ petition is rendered infructuous. The writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. The interim order dated 17-2-2010 is vacated. (B.S.Verma,J.) RCP