IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22893 of 2005 Between: Shri Koya Venkata Akka Rao … Petitioner AND State of A.P., rep., by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj Dept, Secretariat, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : None Counsel for the respondents : AGP for Panchayat Raj This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22893 of 2005 ORDER:- At the interlocutory stage the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal on the submission made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj that the writ petition has become infructuous. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in not opening the financial bid of the petitioner along with other bidders, as illegal. This Court, on 25.10.2005, while declining to grant an interim order, however, observed that finalization of the tenders, pursuant to the impugned tender notification, shall be subject to further orders. In the affidavit filed in support of the application filed by the petitioner for expediting the hearing on 07.11.2007, it is stated that the respondents opened all the bids except his bid, finalized the tenders and allotted all the works to the different contractors. At the hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj stated that the works in question have already been completed. In this factual scenario, I am of the view that the cause in the writ petition does not survive for consideration. Therefore, while dismissing the writ petition, it is made clear that if the petitioner feels aggrieved by the rejection of his price bid, he shall be at liberty to approach the competent civil Court for claiming damages against the respondents. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed as isnfructuous. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.Nos.29337 of 2005 and 35015 of 2007 are disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 19.06.2008 ES