Sai Security Services, Amravati, Thr. Manager Deepak S/O. Sureshrao Chouhan v. The State Of Maha., Thr. Sect., Dept. Of Co-Operation And Marketing, Mumbai And Others

1 wp1792.16.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.1792 OF 2016 [Sai Security Services .vs. The State of Maharashtra and others] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri V.G. Bhamburkar, counsel for the petitioner, Shri N.R. Rode, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3, Shri A.S. Kilor, counsel for respondent no.4. ..........

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.

DATED : JUNE 23, 2016.

By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the tender notice, dated 18.2.2016 on the ground that it was not properly advertised, as required.

Shri Kilor, the learned counsel for the respondent no.4 states, by referring the affidavit-in-reply, that the cause for filing the writ petition has been rendered infructuous due to subsequent development. It is stated that the tender notice, dated 18.2.2016 has been cancelled for the reasons stated in the reply.

In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondent no.4, the cause of action would not survive. The writ petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE Gulande