IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 13TH DECEMBER 2011 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 30388 of 2011(W) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- M.I. JOHN, S/O.LATE ISSAC, MANGALATHU HOUSE, KRIKODE P.O., PERUVA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 610. BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. HINDUSTAN NEWSPRINT LTD, NEWSPRINT NAGAR P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 616, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, 2. THE SENIOR MANAGER, HINDUSTAN NEWSPRINT LTD, NEWSPRINT NAGAR P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 616. 3. RAJIMON, S/O.CHANDY, CHEMPAKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, MEVALLOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 609. 4. K.Y. BABY, S/O.YOHANAN, KARIMADATH HOUSE, KARIKODE P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 610. 5. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEAVY INDUSTRIES, MINISTRY OF HEAVY INDUSTRIES & PUBLIC ENTERPRISES UDYOG BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-11011. 6. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR, SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI, SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS, SRI.P.GOPINATH. R5 BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASG. OF INDIA. R6 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.G. GOPAKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/12/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.30388 of 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT This writ petition was filed on 14.11.2011 for an order directing respondents 1 and 2 to reject the tenders submitted by respondents 3 and 4. It is contended that the tenders submitted by respondents 3 and 4 were not in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated in Ext.P1 tender notice. 2. A statement dated 2.12.2011 has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 by their learned standing counsel. It is stated that respondents 1 and 2 have decided to retender the work by affording all the bidders another opportunity to participate in the tender and that the decision to retender the work was taken in the best interests of all concerned. In such circumstances as respondents 1 and 2 have decided to retender the work, the petitioner cannot have any subsisting grievance. It is evident from the stand taken by respondents 1 and 2 that the petitioner can participate in the retender. I therefore, find no reason to entertain this writ petition. It is W.P(C).No.30388 of 2011 -:2:- accordingly closed as infructuous recording the submission made on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 that Ext.P1 has been cancelled and the work referred to in Ext.P1 will be retendered. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. ahg. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P(C).No.30388 of 2011 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 13th December, 2011