1 2026:CGHC:17721-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1786 of 2026 M/s Niku Kedia Through Proprietor Niku Kedia Aged About 38 Years S/o Pawan Kedia R/o Rajan Attachi House, Beside Kashyap Complex, Telipara Bilaspur District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Urban Admiration and Development Department Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur District-Raipur (C.G.) 2. Union of India Through Government E Marketplace (Gem) 3rd Floor, Tower 2, Jeevan Bharati Building Parliamant Street New Delhi 3. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Bhilai District-Durg (C.G.) 4. M/s Suresh Kumar Through Proprietor Suresh Kumar R/o Near Nagar Nigam Office Bhilai District-Durg (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Additional Advocate General. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.04.20 18:26:38 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 20.04.2026 1. Heard Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State and Mr. Amrito Das, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 3. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly pleased to set-aside/quash the technical BID rejection dated 23.03.2026 is annexed as (Annexure P/1) issued by the respondent No. 3 related to BID No. GEM/2026/B/7257306. 10.2 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly pleased to set-aside/quash the rejection/disqualification dated 10.04.2026 (Annexure P/2) issued by the Respondent No. 3 and the financial Bid of the petitioner may be opened. 10.3 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No. 3 not to issued work order to the private respondent No. 4. 3 10.4 That any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the present petition, the tender in question itself has been cancelled by the competent authority, and therefore, the grievances raised in the present petition no longer survive for adjudication. 4. In view of the aforesaid submission, the present petition has been rendered infructuous. 5. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan