ORDER (A.M.Sapre, CJ) This is an intra-court appeal filed by the writ petitioner of WP(C) No.5486/2014 under Rule 2(3) of Chapter V-A of the Gauhati High Court Rules against the order dated 26.02.2014 passed by the Single Judge in abovementioned writ petition. By impugned order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the appellant’s writ petition and declined to grant them the relief claimed therein. So the short question, which arises for consideration, in this writ appeal, is whether learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the appellant’s writ petition? Facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. They, however, need mention in brief: The respondent - Char Areas Development Department – a State Government Agency, invited one NIT (published in The Assam Tribune on 6.8.2013) for supply of certain items to the State which interalia included two items namely – (1) hand-spray (16 liters capacity and ( 2 ) hand tube wells. The appellant (writ petitioner) is engaged in the business of sale of the said goods. They claimed that they obtained the bid documents with an intention to submit the tender for supply of the goods specified in NIT and finding that the NIT contained several defects in the specifications mentioned in relation to the goods to be supplied by the tenderers, requested the concern authorities of the State to clarify the doubts/defects in the specifications of the goods to enable the appellant (writ petitioner) to submit the tender and participate in the tender process. Since appellant’s request was not acceded to by the authorities concern and hence, they filed the writ petition, out of which, this intra court appeal arises. In the writ petition, the appellant prayed for quashing of the impugned NIT by issuance of writ of certiorari or/and for issuance of mandamus against the respondents directing them to clarify the specifications of the goods mentioned in the NIT or in the alternative, to quash the NIT as a whole, and issue fresh NIT with proper specifications of the goods to be supplied so that the tenderers would be able to participate in the tender process. The appellant also tried to point out the major defects in the specifications of the goods mentioned in the NIT to show its absurdity and vagueness due to which, according to them, it was impossible for anyone to even identify the non-existent goods much less to supply them as per their specifications. The writ court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that since the writ petitioner (appellant herein) did not submit their tender and hence had no locus to file the writ petition to challenge the NIT. This is what was held by the writ court in the impugned order: “In the instant case, the basis of the plea of the petitioner is that in order to participate in the tender process it purchased the tender documents, however, the fact of the matter is otherwise. In fact, the petitioner did not purchase the bid documents as has been indicated in the counter-affidavit filed by the above respondents. When the matter was taken up on 24.02.2014, learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to apprise the Court as to in whose name the petitioner had purchased the bid documents. However, Mr. M. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has misplaced the bid documents. He further submits that the bid documents were purchased in the name of M/s Infra-tech Associates. However, there is no indication as to who represents the said M/s Infra-tech Associates? That apart, the petitioner is not M/s Infra-tech Associates. It is M/s Matrix Associates. If the petitioner did not purchase the tender documents, it could not have made the above quoted statements in paragraph 4 of the writ petition. On that ground alone the writ petition is not maintainable. Above apart, if the petitioner had any doubt about the specifications made in the tender notice, it could have got the matter clarified invoking Clause 35 of the NIT and thereafter submitted its tender. Above being the position, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly stands dismissed.” It is this order, which is now impugned by the writ petitioner in this intra court writ appeal. Above being the position, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly stands dismissed.” It is this order, which is now impugned by the writ petitioner in this intra court writ appeal. At the outset, the learned counsel, appearing for the respondents i.e. State and the private respondent No.3 brought to our notice that the tender of private respondent no.3 pursuant to impugned NIT was accepted and pursuant thereto, they also supplied the tendered materials to the concern department of the State. It was also stated that no payment for the supply has so far been made to the respondent no.3 due to restrain interim orders operating against the respondents. Learned counsels therefore submitted that in the light of these admitted facts, which have come into existence during pendency of this litigation, nothing survive for this court to examine in the appeal on its merits because the issue has now become stale, and no effective orders can be passed in relation to the grievance raised by the appellant (writ petitioner). Learned counsel for the appellant ( writ petitioner ) however vehemently contended that NIT in question was published for supply of – bogus or/and non-existent items and all this was done to siphon off State largess by the officers without receiving any goods and just showing on the papers that goods had been received. Learned counsel contended that the absurdity was apparent by only seeing the specifications prescribed for the goods which could never be manufactured much less could be supplied. He therefore submitted that regardless of the locus issue of the appellant in filing the writ petition, this court can still direct the State to make inquiry into the entire matter before any payment is made to the respondent no.3 or for that matter to all the supplier for the alleged supply because the sum involved in the entire supplies runs into more than Rs. 8 crore or so. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the appeal in the light of their preliminary submissions taken note of supra.. 8 crore or so. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the appeal in the light of their preliminary submissions taken note of supra.. Now coming first to the main argument of the appellant on the merits of the case in our considered opinion keeping in view the course adopted by the Supreme Court, while deciding the leading case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty –vs- The International Airport Authority of India & Ors., 1979 (3) SCC 489 , wherein their Lordships declined to grant any relief to the petitioner on the merits on the ground of delay/laches and further on the ground that during pendency of the matter, the successful bidder had altered his position by starting his business in the suit premises pursuant to acceptance of his tender, no relief to the appellant can be granted. Indeed, when, admittedly, the respondent no.3 had executed the tender and completed the supply of the goods and the same not having been denied factually by the appellant, in our view, nothing survives for this court to examine on the merits. It is more so when the finding of the learned Single Judge (writ court) is that appellant did not even apply for supply of the goods in question. Yet we examined this finding on the merits to find out as to whether any case has been made out for reversal of this finding, but having perused the record and hearing the submissions, we do not find any ground to reverse it in appellant’s favour for want of any material evidence on record. In other words, we are unable to hold in appellant’s favour that they had submitted their tender pursuant to NIT. So far as second submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is concerned, in our view, the same deserves acceptance partly. Having regard to the nature of grievance raised by the appellant and further keeping in consideration the larger public interest of the State and lastly, looking to the seriousness of allegations made, it would be in the interest of State to hold an inquiry and proper verification into the issue. We, accordingly, direct the State to hold an inquiry by constituting a two member committee consisting of two Senior Officers – one from Finance Department and other from Public Works Department. We, accordingly, direct the State to hold an inquiry by constituting a two member committee consisting of two Senior Officers – one from Finance Department and other from Public Works Department. This committee will examine as to whether the goods mentioned in the NIT were of standard specifications, secondly, whether they were capable of being manufactured by any manufacturer and thus were available in the market for sale and supply, and lastly, whether they were actually supplied by the successful tenderer as per specifications mentioned in NIT or not and if so when? Let the inquiry as directed be made and completed by the Committee within three months as an outer limit and depending upon the outcome of the committee’s report, payment be released, if permitted in favour of the concern supplier. In view of foregoing discussions, the appeal succeeds and is allowed in part. The impugned order is accordingly modified to the extent indicated above. No cost.