IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3524 of 2004 Between : Rongali Jagannadham S/o. Late Dali Naidu, Hindu, male, D.No. 39-4-19/1, Opp.to Prasanthi Park, Muralinagar, Visakhapatnam- 7. ..... PETITIONER AND Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, rep., by its Commissioner, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENT 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 any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in rejecting the technical bid submitted in pursuance of the tender notice No.53/2003-04/EE[WS]/DB/I&II/SE[WS & S], dated 28.1.2004 on 21.2.2004 without assigning any reasons though I am having more qualifications and eligibility as arbitrary, capricious, unwarranted, unjust and violative of Article 14,16 & 19 of Constitution of India and consequently to cancel the tender notification referred to above and direct the respondent to call for fresh tenders for the said works and not to allot the said contract work to any other tenderer who is having lesser qualification than him or to pass any other order or orders in the interest of justice. Counsel for Petitioner : SMT.N.(P).ANJANA DEVI, SATYANARAYANA Counsel for Respondent : MR.N.RANGA REDDY (SC FOR MPL. CORP. VSP) The Court made the following : ORDER : It is represented by the learned counsel for petitioner that the subject matter of the writ petition has become infructuous. 2. Recording the said submission, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs. _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 22nd July 2009 ajr