IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 6977 of 2005 Between: 1 B.Veera Raghavulu, S/o.Venkanna, R/o.23-16-17/1, Lalitha Nagar, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 2 M.V.Satyanarayana Reddy, S/o.Veerareddy, R/o.2-150, Srinivasa Nagar, Ubalanka, Ravulapalem, E.G.District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Municiapl Corporation of Rajahmundry, rep.by its Commissioner, Rajahmundry, E.G.District. 2 The Executive Engineer, Municipal Corporation of Rajahmundry, East Godavari Dist. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the tender notice No.17/RAJ/APUSP/CMAP 2nd Cycle/2004-05, dt.24-03-2005 issued by the respondents herein as illegal, arbitrary null and viod and for a consequential direction to the respondents to proceed with entrustment of tender works as per tender notice 16/RAJ/APUSP/CMAP 2nd Cycle/2004-05, dt.09-03-2005 and to pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.V.SURESH Counsel for the Respondent : MR.A.VISHNU VARDHAN REDDY FOR R The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI W.P.NO.6977 of 2005 ORDER The writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the tender notice dated.24-03-2005 issued by the respondents as arbitrary and illegal. Though rule nisi was ordered on 31-03-2005 the interim stay of finalization of tenders as sought by the petitioners was not granted. When the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, under instructions, stated that during the pendency of this writ petition the tenders were finalized and even the work was completed by the successful bidder. In the circumstances, nothing survives for adjudication on merits. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. _____________ G.ROHINI,J 30th January 2009 *TSNR