IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1474 of 2008 Rama kant Singh, S/o- late Ram Khelawan Singh, resident of 101, Lotus Apartment, New Patliputra Colony, P.S. Patliputra, District- Patna. ……. Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The Union of India, through Cabinet Secretary, New Delhi. 2. The IRCON International Ltd. through its Managing Director, Plot No. C-4, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017. 3. The General Manager, IRCON International Ltd. Plot No. C-4, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017. 4. The Additional General Manager, Project International Ltd. Plot No. C-4, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017. 5. The D.G.M. (Civil) International Ltd. Plot No. C-4, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017. 6. The Manager Finance, International Ltd. Plot No. C-4, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017. 7. The A.G.M., IRCON International Ltd. Sone Bhawan, 1st floor, Daroga Prasad Rai Path, Patna-1. 8. The Dy. General Manager, Finance IRCON International Ltd. Sone Bhawan, 1st floor, Daroga Prasad Rai Path, Patna-1. 9. The D.G.M., Civil IRCON International Ltd. A.P. Colony, Gaya. 10. M/s Raja Construction through its partner Mr. Bharatdeo Singh Yadav resident of Ashok Nagar, Rampur, Gaya. ……….Respondents. -------------------- Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Chandrashekhar Pd. Singh Mr. Anil Kumar Upadhya Advocate for the Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Sahvind Kumar Sinha Advocate for the IRCON International Lt : Mr. Mahtab Ahmad Advocate for the Respondent No. 10. : Mr. Y.V. Giri. ----------------------- 07 23.10.2008 The petitioner had responded to a notice inviting tender. His tender was rejected on the ground that he was black listed. Though, in fact, on the day when the tender was filed petitioner was not black listed and black listing came about subsequently, which was also quashed by this Court. The private-respondent was selected. The writ petition was filed challenging the rejection. During pendency of the writ petition the tender itself 2 was cancelled by the respondents and fresh tenders were issued. Petitioner did not participate nor has he challenged those fresh tenders. The tender was issued third time and the private-respondent applied and was selected in the third tender. Petitioner did not participate. Thus, in my view, petitioner not having participated in the fresh tenders, it is not open for him to challenge either the selection of the private-respondent or his rejection in the earliest tender. The writ petition has become infructuous for all intent and purpose and it is accordingly disposed of. Trivedi/ ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)