AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Jayant Patel, J.—The Petitioners, by this petition, challenge the decision dated 18.8.2010 taken by the Secretary, Purchase Committee, rejecting the bid of the Petitioner Company and accepting the bid of the Respondent Company. The other reliefs are consequential based on the aforesaid relief.
We have heard Mr. Mihir Joshi, learned Counsel appearing for Nanavati Associates for the Petitioners, Mr. Maulik Nanavati, learned AGP for the State Authorities, Respondents No. 1 and 2, Mr. Akhil Sibal, learned Counsel with Mr. Munshi, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 3 and Mr. Champaneri, learned Assistant Solicitor General for Respondent No. 4.
Upon hearing the learned Counsel appearing for both the sides, it appears that it is an undisputed position that the contract, which is the subject matter of the present petition, has been fully executed, inasmuch as the material has been supplied and the contract has been fully executed.
Under these circumstances, we find that no useful purpose would be served in examining the questions, which are raised in the present petition for academic purpose.
However, it was submitted Mr. Joshi, learned Counsel that even if this Court is not inclined to interfere on account of the fact that the contract is fully executed, the questions, which are raised in the petition, may be kept open and the Petitioners should be at liberty to independently challenge the decision of equivalence of the quantity as referred to in the impugned decision of the Secretary, Purchase Committee.
It is hardly required to be stated that when this Court finds that the petition has become infructuous on account of the execution of the contract, the questions, which are raised in the petition, are not examined on merits and they are to remain open.
Hence, the petition is disposed of as having become infructuous. It is observed that the questions, which are raised in the petition, including the equivalence of the quantity, shall remain open. The present order shall not operate as a bar to the Petitioners to resort to appropriate remedy for challenging the equivalence or otherwise, in accordance with law.