1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 28 OF 2011 (Vijay Janardan Deshpande vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) __________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. SEPTEMBER 19, 2011. Heard Shri Madkholkar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Taiwade, learned AGP for respondents No. 4 & 5 and Shri Puranik, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 & 3. Shri Puranik, learned counsel states that the tender notice in dispute is already cancelled on 05.06.2011 and hence the challenge has become infructuous. Shri Madkholkar, learned counsel points out that looking to the nature of challenge, this Court has already entertained the same as Public Interest Litigation. He contends that without disclosing the locations and design, tenders were invited and a pre- bid meeting was also scheduled even before the last date of sale of tender forms. He, therefore, contends that all this shows ulterior motive. He further points out that if such a foot over-bridge is to be constructed 2 on road having footpath on either side of width of 5 feet, the entire footpath will be obliterated. He points out that the proposed E-Tender was for such construction at various locations and as those locations are not disclosed, the petitioner could not point out the spot where the mischief is sought to be caused by such construction. We have considered the arguments advanced by Shri Madkholkar, learned counsel. We have also perused the tender notice. It does not disclose the locations at which or then even the number of foot-over bridges, sought to be constructed. Shri Puranik, learned counsel states that as it was a E-Tender, requisite information was placed on site and a person interested could have availed of that information. Shri Puranik, learned counsel points out that at Annexure IV, list of foot- over bridges (sites) is already given. In this situation, we find that because of withdrawal of the tender notice, challenge in the petition is rendered infructuous. We keep all contentions and challenges open. However, the respondents shall also take precaution to give necessary details and also indicate the space or footpath to be used for construction of such foot-over bridge. 3 With liberty to the petitioner to approach again, if he is aggrieved thereafter, petition is disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.