IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4493 of 2006 M/S Sonu Enterprises through its proprietor Sunil Kumar, son of Sri Indradeo Narayan, resident of Mohalla Dhelma, Police Station- Phulwari-sharif, District and town Patna. ……Petitioner. Versus 1. Bharat Sanchal Nigam Limited through its Chief General Manager, Telecom Department, Bihar, Patna. 2. The General Manager, B.S.N.L. District-Gaya. 3. The Deputy General Manager, B.S. N. L. Telecom, District-Gaya. 4. The Divisional Engineer (O & P), BSNL, GNTD, Gaya. 5. The Sub-Divisional Engineer (P), B.S.N.L. GNTD, Gaya. ……Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. J.P. Karn, Senior advocate. ---------- 07/ 24.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs:- i) For quashing the letter vide letter No. GTD/PLG/05-06/UGC/15/34 dated 05.03.2006 issued under the signature of respondent no.4 the Divisional Engineer (O & P) GNTD, Gaya by which the petitioner has been intimated to not qualified for U.G. Construction work in tender No.GTD/PLG/05-06/UGC/15, as the petitioner is son of a BSNL Executive Employee and on this ground, the case of the petitioner cannot be considered for finalization of the tender in his favour. ii) For directing the respondents to allot the tender work for U.G. Cable lying in Jehanabad and Urbal to the petitioner pursuant to tender notice dated 01.12.2005. iii) Also for a direction to the respondents to not allot tender work for U.G. Cable lying in Jehanabad and Urbal in favour of any other agency and further to restrain the respondents - 2 - from executing the agreement for U.G. Cable construction work in Jehanabad and Urbal, pursuance to tender notice dated 01.12.2005. iv) Also for directing the respondents to produce a copy of letter no.15/08/2002 -0 & M/38 dated 11.9.2002 on the basis of which the petitioner has been disqualified for the U.G. Cable construction work in tender No. GTD/Plg/05-06/UGC/15/34. v) Also for any other relief/reliefs for which the petitioner is found to be entitled. 3. From the facts and circumstances of this case as well as from the materials on record and averments made by learned counsel for the parties it is apparent that the tender had been finalized much earlier, whereafter work has been allotted to one of the tenderers, who had completed the work. 4. In the said circumstances, this writ petition has become infructuous and is disposed of as such. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.