JUDGMENT M. M. DAS, J. : The moot point to be determined in the present writ petition as raised by the petitioner is as to wheth¬er the opp.party No.3 - Sandoz Merchant (P) Ltd. can be consid¬ered to be a manufacturer of Hessian goods. 2. The short facts leading to the present case are that a Tender Call Notice under Annexure-3 was published by the Addi¬tional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Kendu Leaves) Orissa inviting sealed offers from manufacturers of Hessian goods for supply of 720 bales of Hessian cloth (superior), 76 bales of Hessian cloth (inferior) and 18 Metric Ton of Hessian Twine. Both the petitioner and the opp.party No.3 responding to the said tender call notice, offered their bids for supply of the above goods. In the process of selection of the tenderer, the opp.party No.1 finding the price quoted by opp.party No.3 to be the lowest accepted the same. 3. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submit¬ted that the opp.party No.3 was not eligible to participate in the tender process as the said company is not a manufacturer of Hessian goods but only manufacturer of Hessian bags by purchasing Hessian clothes from the market. It is further alleged by the petitioner that in the context of the goods as the intention of the opp.party No.1 was to purchase Hessian cloth of superior and inferior qualities and Hessian Twine, the phrase “Manufacturer of Hessian goods” should be interpreted as manufacturer of “Hessian cloth and twine”. Mr. Mishra therefore contended that the opp.party No.3 being a manufacturer of Hessian cloth bags which it produces by consuming Hessian cloth from the market as raw materials, it cannot be said that the said opp.party No.3 is a manufacturer of Hessian goods as meant in the tender call notice. It is, therefore, submitted by Mr.Mishra that the party No.1 could have selected any other tenderer as there were other manu¬facturers of Hessian goods who made their offers. The petitioner has, therefore, prayed to quash the selection of opp.party No.3 for supply of goods as per the tender call notice. 4. Mr. It is, therefore, submitted by Mr.Mishra that the party No.1 could have selected any other tenderer as there were other manu¬facturers of Hessian goods who made their offers. The petitioner has, therefore, prayed to quash the selection of opp.party No.3 for supply of goods as per the tender call notice. 4. Mr. B. P. Ray, learned counsel for the opp.party No.3, in his return to the writ petition, has stated that it is a manu¬facturer of Hessian goods as it is manufacturing Hessian bags and has been registered as a manufacturer of Hessian goods under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act and also registered as such under the Sales Tax Rules (Central). It is stated in the further affidavit filed on behalf of the said opp.party No.3 that pursuant to the issuance of a letter dated 27.4.2006 under Annexure-C/3 issued by the opp.party No.1, the opp.party No.3 has entered into an agree¬ment with the State of Orissa under Annexure-D/3 for supply of goods as mentioned in the tender call notice and after execution of the said agreement, the opp.party No.3 has already dispatched the goods on 6.5.2006 through Arnapurna Road Ways, Kolkata. 5. When the matter was taken up on 4.5.2006, this Court passed an order directing the learned counsel for the State to obtain instruction as to whether the agreement has been executed with the opp.party No.3 and as to whether the said opp.party No.3 has commenced supply of the materials as stated in the counter affidavit and further affidavit filed by the said opp. party No.3. Pursuant to the above order, Mr. P. K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate has produced the connected records before us. On perusal of the same, we find that the assertions made by opp.party No.3 in the counter affidavit and the further affidavit are correct. 6. Since the opp.party No.3 has already entered into an agreement with the opp.party No.1 for supply of the goods in question and has already commenced supply of the same, in our considered view, the question raised by the petitioner has become purely academic. 7. In view of the above, we are not inclined to interfere with the matter and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. B. P. DAS, J. I agree. Petitions dismissed.