1 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.587 OF 2010 Moreshwar Builders and Developers, A partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 having its office at A-001, Vastu Apartment, Dindayal Road, Dombivali (West)-421 202. ... Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ... Respondents. ... Mr.S.S.Thombre, advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.N.B.Khandare, Govt. Pleader for the State. ... CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,JJ. Date : 12.04.2010. ORAL JUDGMENT (Per P.V.Hardas,J.) 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With 2 the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the impugned communication dated 2.1.2010 issued by the Respondent No.4. The petitioner also prays for issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to release the amount including the amount of fine as well as the amount of the running bills. The petitioner prays for restraining the Respondents from taking any action as per letter dated 2.1.2010. 3. On notice of this petition being issued to the Respondents, the Respondents have filed their affidavit-in-reply. At para 23 of the affidavit-in-reply, which is reproduced : "There are no intention of the Respondent to assign the work to any local contractor by increasing the rates. In fact, the Respondent want 3 that petitioner should complete the work. In each and every letter written to the petitioner the Respondent has reiterated this point. Even now also the petitioner can complete the work at the earliest possible. The Respondent will release all of his payments as admissible as per contract conditions." 4. In the aforesaid affidavit-in-reply, it is stated that the Respondents have no intention of assigning the work to any local contractor and in fact, want the petitioner to complete the work. It is further stated that the petitioner should complete the work at the earliest possible opportunity and the Respondents would release all his payment as admissible under the contract condition. We accept the aforesaid statement made at para 23 as an undertaking to the Court. 5. According to us, in the light of the aforesaid statement which we have accepted as an 4 undertaking to the Court, no relief survives for determination in this petition. Consequently, we allow the petition by making Rule absolute in terms of the statement made at para 23 which we have accepted an undertaking to the Court. 6. In the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondents, it is stated that the petitioner himself had shown his inability to execute the remaining work on account of illness and had annexed a Doctor's certificate dated 5.5.2009. It is further stated in the additional affidavit that as per provisions of clause (3) of said agreement, the Respondent authorities are also not liable but entitled to take action against a contractor like the petitioner. If we do not wish to dilate in respect of the additional affidavit. The additional affidavit deals with the terms and conditions of the contract as well as the rights of the Respondents to take appropriate action against the petitioner. We are concerned with the reliefs 5 prayed for by the petitioner in this petition. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) (P.V.HARDAS,J.) asp/office/wp587.10