WP(C) 1753/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. A.K. Bhattacharjee, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. Choudh ury, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Addl. Advoc ate General assisted by Mr. Patowary, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 a nd 2 and Mr. M.Z. Ahmed, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. A.M. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent No.3. The grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is that though t he respondent No.3’s bid was not responsive to the technical bid being violative of Clause 12.1 (Part-II) and Clause 26.2 of the NIT issued for construction of RCC Bridge over river Aie at Chilapara, Kahibari village on the road from Kakoij ana NH-31 to Nowagaon, Manikpur NH-31 via Kirtanpara, Numberpara village under B ongaigaon Rural Road Division, an attempt has been made by the respondent author ity to make the respondent No.3’s bid responsive to the technical bid and to set tle the work in favour of the said respondent. Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for the res pondent Nos.1 and 2 on the basis of the written instruction received, has submit ted that the respondent No.3 was not found to be responsive to the financial bid and hence his offer was not accepted and in fact the writ petitioner has been f ound to be L1 after rejection of the bid of the respondent No.3. In view of the aforesaid submission, Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned Sr. coun sel for the petitioner has submitted that as the petitioner’s bid is found to th e lowest, no lis survives in the present petition for decision. Hence the writ petition stands closed. The written instruction received by Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Addl. Ad vocate General and as produced before the Court is kept on record.