THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD W.A.No.812 of 2009 AND W.P.No.11149 of 2009 JUDGMENT: (Per. Hon’ble Sri Justice GODA RAGHURAM) At the hearing of this appeal directed against the order of the learned single Judge of this Court dated 16.06.2009 rejecting W.P.M.P.No.14325 of 2009 in W.P.No.11149 of 2009, the learned Counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner, Sri K.Ashok Reddy and Sri M.Ravindranath Reddy, learned Counsel representing respondents 1 and 2, who are respondents in the writ petition, conjointly submit that having regard to subsequent developments the appeal along with the substantive Writ Petition No.11149 of 2009 could be disposed of. As already stated the appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge declining to grant interim relief to the appellant-writ petitioner, who filed the writ petition aggrieved that respondents 1 and 2 herein had opened the price bid of the 4th respondent pursuant to the tender notification dated 20.03.2009 though the 4th respondent was not qualified, since his tender was not in consonance with the terms and conditions of the tender schedule for the reason that the said respondent did not have a current and operative certificate from the National Small Scale Industries Corporation exempting the 4th respondent from depositing the EMD and he filed his bid without depositing such EMD. It is represented by Sri M.Ravindranath Reddy that after the appeal was admitted, a learned Division Bench of this Court passed an order dated 24.07.2009 in W.A.M.P.No.1928 of 2009 in the Writ Appeal modifying the interim order of stay of finalization of tenders granted on 23.06.2009 in W.A.M.P.No.1589 of 2009. The 4th respondent has subsequently applied to respondents 1 and 2 herein, to resile from further proceedings pursuant to the tender notification and for refund of the amount deposited by him. On such request, the 4th respondent was permitted to withdraw the amount deposited and the 4th respondent is no longer a proper and necessary party or interested to either the writ petition or this appeal. By the interim order dated 24.07.2009 in this appeal, this Court directed that in accordance with the normal practice and the appellant-writ petitioner being the lowest bidder would be entitled for 60% of the work and balance 40% could be allotted to the second lowest bidder, who was the 4th respondent, and in case the 4th respondent is not accepting the offer of 40% of work the same could be offered to L3 and L4 bidders, but at the rates quoted by the appellant-writ petitioner, the lowest tenderer. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for respondents 1 and 2, Sri M.Ravindranath Reddy, that the Writ Petition and Writ Appeal could be disposed of in terms of the interim order of the learned Division Bench of this Court dated 24.07.2009. The learned Counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner has no objection to the said course of action. In view of the fact that the 4th respondent is no longer interested in the matter and since the interim order dated 24.07.2009 is in accordance with the normal practice of respondents 1 and 2 in such matters, respondents 1 and 2 are directed to continue awarding 60% of the work notified by the tender notification dated 20.03.2009 to the appellant-writ petitioner as the lowest tenderer and in respect of the balance 40% of the work, respondents 1 and 2 may offer the same to L3 and L4 and in case those tenderers do not accept the balance 40% work at the rates quoted by the appellant-writ petitioner, that quantum of 40% work shall also be offered to the appellant-writ petitioner herein. In terms of the above directions, the Writ Appeal and the Writ Petition shall stand disposed of. No costs. ______________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J ____________________ P.DURGA PRASAD, J Date:07.07.2011 Gsn.