(3) The petitioner, in substance, was seeking a direction to the respondents to invite tenders from the persons who are having MOEF certihcate. (4) The respondents have flied counter affidavit and paragraphs 3 and 4 whereof read as follows: “3. it is respectfuiiy submitted that in compliance of the Ministryof Environment and Forest, Government of india, notification dated 20'“ May, 2003 notifying the Hazardous Wastes (Management and Handling) Amendment Rules, 2003 framed in exercise of powers under Section 6, 8 and 25 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and more particularly Rule 3 (1 4), (24) and Rule 19 and 20 thereof, wherein a person desirous of recycling any Non Ferrous Metal has obtained a certificate of registration from MOEF, the answering respondentshave decidedby note-sheet datedv 11.09.2006 vide ANNEXURE R-1 that a ,corrigendum to this effect is required to be issued to the Notice inviting Tender. 4. In view of the above decision vide Annexure R-1, the answering respondents shall proceed to issue corrigendum to the NIT or may also consider issuance of fresh NIT by incorporating the ore-qualification clause that a person willing to participate in the tender notice shall be required to have a certificate issued by MOEF for recycling of Non Ferrous Metal (5) Shri Rajeev Shrivastava leamed counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that in view of the stand taken by the respondents in the above quoted paragraphs No. 3 and 4 of the counter aftidavit, now nothing survives for the decision in the writ petition. (6) The writ etition thus stands disposed of, l 3d!— Sdl- ‘L ’ Sunii Kumar Sinha l, Judge Chief Justice