Judgment : A.M. Khanwilkar, J. - 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. As regards the principal relief claimed in this petition to challenge the tender process and the allotment of rate contract vide Annexure P3, it is common ground that the contract period is already over in March, 2013. In that case, nothing survives for consideration in this petition with regard to the said relief. As regards the second relief claimed by the petitioner that respondents No. 1 to 4 may be directed to undertake the process in a stipulated period and follow the procedure as prescribed in the rules of the stores to avoid any room for any illegality, favouritism or arbitrariness while dealing with the sensitive issue of Rate Contracts, learned Advocate General on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4 states that in future, all rate contracts will be awarded strictly in accordance with the extant regulations and the norms specified therefor. In view of this statement, nothing more is required to be done with regard to the second prayer clause. This statement is made without prejudice to the stand taken by the respondents in the present petition that necessary formalities have been strictly complied with by the department. It is not necessary for us to examine that issue as it has become academic with reference to the expired rate contract. 3. The third prayer clause in this petition is to direct respondents No. 3 and 4 to produce records of the entire tender process as the main relief cannot be considered because of efflux of time. This relief will also have to be disposed of for the same reason. 4. The petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file fresh proceedings if fresh cause of action arises in future. All questions raised in this petition are left open to be considered in appropriate proceedings as and when occasion arises. The pending application(s), if any, also disposed of.