AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
4 paragraphs · 91 words
Vipin Sanghi, CJ
1) The petitioners preferred the present petition in May 2022 to assail the declaration of respondent No. 3 as technically qualified. Respondent No. 3 emerges as L-1 bidder, whereas the petitioner was adjudged as L-2 bidder.
3) Since May 2022, the matter is pending, and has not been pressed by the petitioners. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 states that the respondent No. 3 has already completed the work awarded to it on 12.12.2022.
4) This petition has, therefore, become infructuous, and is dismissed as such.