Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to adhere to the tender conditions, as stipulated in the Tender Addendum No.1, to the original tender, dated 1.7.2010, especially, Clause 1.11.5 and Annexure A (Volume 4) of the Tender Addendum No.1 and consequently, direct the first respondent to accept the fastening systems, which are strictly adhering to the tender conditions. 3. A number of grounds had been raised by the petitioner, in respect of the issues arising for the consideration of this Court, in the present writ petition. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted, inter alia, that the first respondent ought to be directed to adhere to the tender conditions, especially, clause 1.11.5, of the said conditions. It has been further stated that the first respondent, in order to favour the second respondent, had attempted to dilute the performance criteria stipulated in the said conditions. 4. It had been further stated that, as per the Addendum No.1, dated 2.8.2010, certain specific conditions had been stipulated, in respect of the contractors, to carry out the work of designing and construction of the tracks of the Chennai Metro Rail Project. 5. It had been further stated that a tender, dated 1.7.2010, had been floated by the first respondent, for the installation of ballastless track, with particular specifications for the fastening system, for the Chennai Metro Rail Project. As per clause 1.11.5 of the Addendum No.1, dated 2.8.2010, the contractor should ensure the fulfillment of certain requirements, by the suppliers of the fastening system. Clause 1.11.5 of the Addendum reads as follows: "The contractor shall ensure that the slab structure system and the rail fastening used in the design fully conform to the various technical requirements and performance criteria stipulated in the ministry of Railways (Railway board's letter no 2009/Proj/Mas/9/2 dated 21.5.2010, enclosed in Annexure B of this Addendum no 1. The contractor shall ensure that the slab track system and the rail fastening proposed for this project, have been successfully used in other established Metro Railway system/s and have been giving reliable and trouble free service for at least 5 years. The contractor shall ensure that the slab track system and the rail fastening proposed for this project, have been successfully used in other established Metro Railway system/s and have been giving reliable and trouble free service for at least 5 years. Certificate from the competent authority of the Metro Railway System establishing the provenness of the system, and other various information and document as stipulated in Annexure A of this Addendum no 1, shall be furnished without fail". 6. Annexure-A of the Addendum No.1 stipulates certain conditions to be adhered to, by the first respondent. The main allegation of the petitioner is that the first respondent had attempted to procure the fastening system, from the third respondent, by diluting the tender conditions, especially, the conditions stipulated in Clause 1.11.5 and Annexure-A of Addendum No.1, dated 1.7.2010. Annexure-A of Addendum No.1 reads as follows: "A. The tenderer shall submit certificates from a competent authority of any established Metro railway system/s to the effect that the type of slab track structure and the fastening system, which is being offered by the Tenderer, has been functioning satisfactorily and has been rendering reliable, trouble free service for a period of atleast the past 5 years since the commissioning of the section for regular traffic, covering a minimum stretch of 10 km track in underground or elevated sections, as the case maybe. If different types of Slab track and fastening system are adopted by the tenderer for underground and elevated sections, separate certificates shall be submitted." 7. The first respondent should also follow the conditions mentioned in Annexure-B of the tender conditions. Annexure-B of the tender conditions reads as follows: "Annexure-B The Ministry of railways has finalized the performance criterion of the fastening systems for ballastless track for Metro Railways/MRTS systems. These performance criterion will come into force with immediate effect. Metro railways/MRTS systems are free to choose fastening systems for ballastless track complying to these performance crieterion. They should however report the details of the fastening system adopted by them to the Ministry of Railways. In case a new system is introduced in the Country for the fist time, the same will be kept under observation by RDSO for a period of two years in association with the concerned Metro/railways/MRTS system. They should however report the details of the fastening system adopted by them to the Ministry of Railways. In case a new system is introduced in the Country for the fist time, the same will be kept under observation by RDSO for a period of two years in association with the concerned Metro/railways/MRTS system. In case any metro ralway or MRTS system wishes to deviate from these Performance Criterion, Prior approval of Ministry of Railways would be necessary." 8. Since, attempts are being made by the first respondent to dilute the performance criteria in order to favour the second respondent, by circumventing the mandatory conditions of the proven track record for a period of atleast five years. As such dilution of the tender conditions would result in the compromising of the public safety, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition, before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. Even though elaborate arguments had been made relating to the main issues arising for the consideration of this Court, the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that all the tender conditions, including Clause 1.11.5 of Addendum No.1, dated 1.7.2010, had been followed, for procuring the fastening system, for the Chennai Metro Rail Project. 10. It had also been submitted that the writ petition filed by the petitioner, is not maintainable, in view of the fact that the petitioner cannot be said to be an aggrieved party. Further, even if it is accepted that the writ petition had been filed by the petitioner, in public interest, it cannot be heard by this Court, as it has to be listed before a Division Bench constituted for the hearing of public interest litigations. 11. However, the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the present writ petition has become infructuous. In view of the tender notification issued by the first respondent, on 1.7.2010, and the Tender Addendum No.1 issued by the respondent, on 2.8.2010, the tender had been granted in favour of the third respondent, following the stipulations prescribed in Clause 1.11.5 of the tender conditions. Subsequently, an order had been given to the second respondent for the supply of the fastening system. Subsequently, an order had been given to the second respondent for the supply of the fastening system. Without challenging the said order, it would not be open to the petitioner to pursue the present writ petition, praying for the relief of a direction, as prayed for in the present writ petition. 12. An affidavit, dated 20.4.2012, has been filed before this Court, on behalf of the third respondent, confirming the said submission made on behalf of the respondents. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the said affidavit, dated 20.4.2012, reads as follows: “3.) After the filing of the aforesaid affidavit, I state that a purchase agreement dated 13.1.2012 was concluded between Alstom Projects India Limited and Pandrol UK Limited with office at Gateford Road, Worksop, Notts S81 7AX and Pandrol Rahee Technologies Limited (the 2nd respondent) with office at Flat No.1C, 1st Floor, 4 Ho Chi Minh Sarani, Kolkata 700 071. 4.) The aforesaid purchase agreement was concluded pursuant to the award of contract for “Trackworks-Design and Build, Chennai Metrorail Project Phase-I, Contract ATA-01” to the 3rd respondent.” 13. In view of the above, this Court finds it appropriate to dismiss the writ petition, as it has become infructuous. However, it goes without saying that it would be open to the petitioner to challenge the purchase agreement, dated 13.1.2012, granting the contract in favour of the third respondent, if so advised, before the appropriate forum, in the manner known to law. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed, as infructuous. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.