1 12 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2827/2006. Baitu Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd. Vs. State & Ors. Date of Order :: 17th October 2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI None present for the petitioner. Mr. P.P. Choudhary, for the contesting respondent No.3. ..... BY THE COURT: Though nobody is present for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 has pointed out that this writ petition has been rendered infructuous particularly for the reason that the term of the authorisation in dispute was for the year 2006-07 only; and nothing further survives for consideration so far the subject matter of this writ petition is concerned. It is noticed that in this writ petition, preferred by the petitioner while challenging the grant of authorisation to the respondent No. 3 as wholesale dealer in essential commodities for Panchayat Samiti, Sindhari, this Court passed the interim order on 18.01.2007 staying the operation of the impugned orders (Annexs. 6 & 7). Thereafter, on 02.03.2007, while considering the matter on an application moved under Article 226 (3) of the Constitution of India, this Court noticed, 2 inter alia, that the authorisation was granted on year to year basis; that the tenure for the disputed authorisation, being for the year 2006-07, was on the verge of coming to an end; and that the interim arrangements were made by the State Government operative until 31.03.2007. While continuing with the stay order, this Court left it open for the State to invite fresh tenders in accordance with the notice dated 05.12.2006 (Annex. R/3/3); and it was also left open for the private respondent to have its rights adjudicated in a competent Court regarding entitlement to any compensation for the loss that might have been suffered by it on account of the grant being made to other person pending the writ petition, if at all able to establish that grant in its favour had been a valid one. Having regard to the subject-matter of this writ petition and the orders passed earlier, this Court is satisfied that nothing further survives for consideration in this writ petition; and by efflux of time, this writ petition too has become infructuous as has been noticed in the cognate matter, CWP No. 6614/2006, that has been dismissed today as infructuous by way of separate order. This writ petition is also dismissed as infructuous. No costs. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. Mohan/