ORDER : A.S. Bopanna, J. 1. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the Tender notification dated 4-2-2014 impugned at Annexure-A to the petition. Petitioner is seeking for issue of mandamus to direct the respondents to call for fresh negotiations with the petitioner and extend the period of contract awarded as per the work order dated 13-2-2013. The petitioner who had participated in the tender process relating to Mysuru-Bantwal State Highway, had been issued with the work order dated 13-2-2013. However, on the allegation that the petitioner had not diligently carried out the work, the work order was terminated at the risk and cost of the petitioner. Subsequent thereto, in order to complete the unfinished work, the respondent 2 had issued the Tender notification which is presently assailed in this petition. The respondents have filed their objection statement indicating the reasons for which termination was issued and the subsequent action taken to entrust the work to a new contractor. In the objection statement, it is also pointed out that pursuant to the impugned tender notification, the work has already been entrusted to another contractor, namely, the respondent 4, who has also completed the work on 23-10-2014. The document produced at Annexure-R2 is to the said effect where the date of completion is indicated. Hence, it is contended that the grievance put forth would not survive for consideration. 2. In the light of the above, what is also relevant to be kept in mind is that as against the termination of the work order which had been issued to the petitioner, the petitioner was before this Court in Writ Petition No. 57448 of 2013 (B. Lingegowda v Chief Engineer, Communication and Buildings, Department of Public Works, Bangalore and Others). This Court while disposing of the petition on 16-1-2014, had taken into consideration that the petitioner has an alternate remedy of having the dispute resolved by way of arbitration and as such it relegated the petitioner to the said remedy and had also indicated that if any interim measure in the meanwhile is required, the petitioner would avail the same as provided under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The petitioner has accordingly filed the Case No. AA/24/2014 under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The petitioner has accordingly filed the Case No. AA/24/2014 under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The order sheet produced at Annexure-J no doubt refers to the order of status quo ordered therein and also the application filed under Order 39, Rule 2-Aof Civil Procedure Code, 1908, in I.A. No. 2 alleging that the interim order had been violated. If the present work which has been allocated to the respondent 4 has now been completed and if the same is in contravention of any of the orders passed, the same would only arise for consideration in an appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. In that light, all that is necessary to be taken into consideration in the instant petition is as to whether the challenge to the impugned tender notification would be sustainable. 3. In the circumstances as already noticed, since the termination as made has not been interfered by this Court in the earlier petition and dispute in that regard is to be resolved in the arbitration proceedings, the consideration of the grievance put forth with regard to the subsequent tender notification, in any event, would not arise in this petition. Even otherwise, the work which was allocated to the respondent 4 after completion of the tender process has already been completed by the respondent 4 and as such the validity of the tender notification need not be gone into in this petition. In that view, the prayer made in the petition does not arise for consideration at this stage. Accordingly, petition stands disposed of.