IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 3RD JANUARY 2011 / 13TH POUSHA 1932 WA.No. 1243 of 2010 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.16778/2010 Dated 06/07/2010 .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 IN WPC: ------------------------------------------------ 1. THE HINDUSTAN NEWSPRINT LTD., A GOVT. OF INDIA ENTERPRISES,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,NEWSPRINT NAGAR-686 616, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER(FDP), HINDUSTAN NEWSPRINT LTD., NEWSPRINT NAGAR-686616, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.MADHAVAN RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN WPC: -------------------------------------- S.SUPRAN,MINI BHAVAN,NADATHARA PO, KOLLAM 691 541. BY ADV. SRI.B.GOPAKUMAR SMT.CHINCY GOPAKUMAR THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No. 1243 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT J.Chelameswar, C.J. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 06.07.2010 in W.P.(C) No. 16778 of 2010, the respondents therein preferred the present appeal. 2. The writ petition was filed with the prayer as follows: “i) a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the respondents to see that the Work Order in respect of 2nd item among the 11 works attempted to be tendered out as per Exhibit.P1 is awarded to the petitioner, so far as he has quoted the lowest rates in respect of the said item of work, and his rates are not more than 10% above the PAC notified in Exhibit.P1.” 3. The first appellant is a Government Company within the meaning of Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956. It issued a tender notice dated 26.02.2010 inviting sealed tenders from registered 'Captive Plantation Contractors'. The sole respondent herein is admittedly the lowest tenderer with WA No. 1243 of 2010 -:2:- reference to one of the items of work for which tenders were invited. However, the respondent was not awarded the contract and hence the writ petition. 4. A learned Judge of this Court by judgment under appeal opined that the decision of the appellants herein, not to award any contract to the sole respondent herein is arbitrary and therefore allowed the writ petition directing the award of contract. Hence the appeal. 5. When the matter is taken up today it is brought to the notice of this Court that the work in dispute is already awarded to a third party pursuant to a fresh tender notice issued on 09.06.2010. The learned counsel for the respondent makes an emphatic statement in this regard. In the circumstances, irrespective of the correctness of the reasons given in the judgment under appeal allowing the writ petition, in our view, the writ petition is required to be dismissed as having become infructuous by subsequent developments. Unless the consequential decision pursuant to the tender dated 09.06.2010 to award the work is legally set aside, the claim of the WA No. 1243 of 2010 -:3:- respondent cannot be considered at all. The fact remains that neither the tender notification dated 09.06.2010 nor the consequent award of the contract pursuant to the process initiated under the above notification is challenged before any competent Court. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed and the writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous, reserving the liberty to the respondent herein to pursue such remedies as are available to the respondent under law in the background of the abovementioned facts. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice. P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge. ttb WA No. 1243 of 2010 -:4:-