ORDER : C. Praveen Kumar, J. 1. W.P. (PIL) No.387 of 2018 came to be filed seeking issuance of writ of Mandamus to declare the procedure adopted for inviting and opening the tender notice dated 23.05.2018, in awarding contract for providing Flat Panel Digital Cathlab for Cardiac and Neuroradiology Intervention and Therapeutic Services at Government Hospitals in Andhra Pradesh vide tender Notice No.3/7/APMSIDC/EQUIPMENT/18-19, dated 23.5.2018 as illegal and arbitrary and to declare that the 4th respondent as not eligible to compete for the contract notified vide tender notice dated 23.5.2018, in view of clause-6 of Section-V of the tender document and consequently, to set aside the contract executed by the 2nd respondent in favour of the 4th respondent dated 16.8.2018 in respect of the cathlab services in King George Hospital, Visakhapatnam and Government General Hospital, Guntur. 2. W.P.No.41301 of 2018 is filed to declare the proceedings dated 23.5.2019 as illegal and improper. 3. It would be appropriate to take P.I.L. as a lead petition to decide the issues raised, since the relief claimed in W.P.No.41301 of 2018 forms part of one of the prayers in the W.P. (P.I.L.) No.387 of 2018. 4. The facts which led to filing of the present Writ Petition are as under : The 3rd respondent issued a tender notification dated 23.5.2018 inviting tenders for providing Flat Panel Digital Cathlab for Cardiac and Neuroradiology Intervention and Therapeutic Services at Government Hospital in Andhra Pradesh. The sale of tender enquiry documents was fixed from 24.5.2018 to 19.6.2018. Pre-tender meeting was scheduled on 30.5.2018, closing date of receipt of tender was fixed as 19.6.2018; date of opening of technical bid was fixed on 19.6.2018 and opening of financial bid was also fixed on the very same day. However, prior to opening of the said tender, the schedule on 19.6.2018 came to be postponed and pre-bid queries were called for through amendment No.3, dated 5.7.2018. It is said that without addressing the objections, the authorities carried out the tender process only with a view to help the 4th respondent and accordingly awarded the contract. Hence, the present writ petition came to be filed. 5. As seen from the record, pursuant to the tender notice dated 23.5.2018, three bids filed by the bidders were found to be in order and were considered to be qualified. Hence, the present writ petition came to be filed. 5. As seen from the record, pursuant to the tender notice dated 23.5.2018, three bids filed by the bidders were found to be in order and were considered to be qualified. Letters of intent dated 25.7.2018 came to be issued by the 2nd respondent to M/s.Help Hospital Pvt. Ltd. for KGH, Visakhapatnam and Dr. Pallem Peddeswara Rao of M/s.Heart Care for GGH,Vijayawada. A consortium was formed in the form of MoU between Sai Balaji Sprintex, M/s.Help Hospitals Private Limited and Boppanna Medicare Private Limited and thereafter the tender document was submitted in the name of M/s.Help Hospitals Pvt. Ltd. being the lead member of consortium. Special Purpose Vehicle, in the form of the 4th respondent, came to be established maintaining the share capital pattern in equal proportion. On 16.12.2018, an MoU was entered into between the 4th respondent and the 2nd respondent in respect of GGH, Guntur and KGH, Visakhapatnam and operations were commenced from 19.12.2018 and 6.2.2019 respectively. 6. The grievance of the writ petitioner in the writ petition appears to be that tender came to be awarded in violation of guidelines issued by the Central Vigilance Commission and the judgment of the Apex Court in Meerut Nagar Nigam, Meerut v. Al Faheem Meat Exports Pvt. Ltd. He further pleads that the tender is for about 100 crores value involving public health and exchequer and without following the guidelines in its letter and spirit, the tender came to be awarded in favour of 4th respondent. It is said that under clause 6 of Section V, the principal bidder shall have a minimum turn over of Rs.10 crores per annum in the last three financial years. The 4th respondent company was incorporated on 13.4.2018 and as such it cannot be said that the 4th respondent has a required turn over in the last three financial years. It is further pleaded that none of the Directors of the 4th respondent company have any requisite experience for executing a work of this nature. It is further pleaded that the writ petitioner made an application under right to information act for the eligibility, years of experience in performing the cathlab services, number of cath procedure undertaken for the last three years and panel of doctors engaged by the 4th respondent for conducting cardiology services. It is further pleaded that the writ petitioner made an application under right to information act for the eligibility, years of experience in performing the cathlab services, number of cath procedure undertaken for the last three years and panel of doctors engaged by the 4th respondent for conducting cardiology services. Vide Rc.dated 23.10.2018, the 2nd respondent informed that the said information is not available in the office and that the cardiology services in cathlabs of KGH, Visakhapatnam and GGH, Guntur would be available with the concerned Superintendent of the Government Hospitals. Having regard to the above, it is pleaded that the contract awarded in favour of the 4th respondent is illegal, improper and in total violation of the law laid down by the Apex Court. 7. The averments in the Writ Petition No.41301 of 2018 would show that without answering the bid queries raised by the petitioner with regard to experience and eligibility of the 4th respondent in providing cathlab services and as the 4th respondent came to be established only a year above, he pleads that the awarding of contract is totally in violation of the law laid down. 8. Counter came to be filed by the respondent No.4 disputing the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the petition. It would be appropriate to extract the averments in the counter filed by the 4th respondent, who is the contesting party in both the writ petitions. 9. Coming to the bona fides of the petitioners in both the writ petitions, it is pleaded that since the petitioner in W.P.No.41301 of 2018 was unsuccessful in getting any order at the time of admission of the writ, a PIL came to be filed seeking identical relief. Though the counsel would contend that the petitioner in W.P.No.41301 of 2018 has nothing to do with the petitioner in PIL, he placed on record material to show that petitioner in W.P.No.41301 of 2018 has some connection with the petitioner in PIL, which we shall deal with later. Though the counsel would contend that the petitioner in W.P.No.41301 of 2018 has nothing to do with the petitioner in PIL, he placed on record material to show that petitioner in W.P.No.41301 of 2018 has some connection with the petitioner in PIL, which we shall deal with later. Insofar as the argument of the petitioner that the 4th respondent is not the lead partner of the consortium and that it was not part of the MoU, it is stated that after the tender was floated by the respondent No.3, three entities by name (i) Help Hospitals Pvt. Ltd., (ii) Boppanna Medicare Private Limited and (iii) Sri Sai Balaji Spintex India Pvt. Ltd. executed a memorandum of Understanding in Form-7, in the month of July, 2018 and consequently formed a consortium. Two partners of Consortium gave Special Power of Attorney dated 13.7.2018, in favour of Help Hospital Pvt. Ltd.and agreed that Help Hospitals Pvt. Ltd. to be the lead manager of the consortium. It is said that subsequent to the clarifications issued in the pre-bid meeting and subsequent to the amendments made in the tender process, Help Hospitals Pvt. Ltd. participated in the tender process and submitted the bid on 15.7.2018, after following the due process as contemplated under the Request For Proposal. Later, the letter of intent dated 25.7.2018 came to be issued in favour of Help Hospitals Pvt. Ltd. in relation to GGH, Guntur and KGH, Visakhapatnam centers. The turn over of the consortium and experience of consortium was relied upon in declaring them eligible for participating in the tender. It is said that subsequent to the letters of intent, the contracting authority, M/s.Help Hospital Private Limited together with its consortium members adopted an existing company by name, M/s.Lakshmi Aarush Health Care Private Limited (R4) to discharge the obligations under the contract as a SPV. It is pleaded that the consortium members retained the paid up equity in the said SPV in compliance with terms and conditions of RFP. Subsequently, an agreement was entered into by the 2nd respondent with the 4th respondent for providing cathlab. Answering the query that amendment made after bid were only to favour 4th respondent, it is pleaded that Help Hospital Pvt. Ltd. is not the sole bidder and there was another bidder who has been granted the contract to other center. Subsequently, an agreement was entered into by the 2nd respondent with the 4th respondent for providing cathlab. Answering the query that amendment made after bid were only to favour 4th respondent, it is pleaded that Help Hospital Pvt. Ltd. is not the sole bidder and there was another bidder who has been granted the contract to other center. It is said that the persons, who have participated in the bid, never challenged the process, but the person, who has neither submitted tender forms, nor participated in the tender, is challenging the same. It is said that clause 9.2 of Illustrative Check which points out various stages of public procurement issued by Central Vigilance Commission is not applicable in the present tender process, since the respondent No.1 has the power to call for online tender. Even assuming that the same is applicable, it is pleaded that still there is no bar for online process. Hence, urged that the tender process followed is well within the guidelines. It is said that basing on the material placed on record by the contesting respondents, the respondent No.4 is a SPV, as required under the term of RFP. It is said that considering that SPV became operational subsequent to the receipt of the Letters of Intent by M/s.Help Hospital Pvt. Ltd. and its consortium members, the respondent would have the turnover and the experience that is required to participate in the tender. Since the lead partner of a consortium had complied with the requisite conditions, the authorities have awarded the contract. Therefore, it is pleaded that there is no illegality or impropriety in awarding the tender in its favour. 10. The 3rd respondent, who is the Executive Director of A.P. Medical Services & Infrastructure, filed his counter-affidavit disputing the averments made in support of the PIL. It is stated that the 3rd respondent has strictly followed the law and the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court and nowhere violated the same. It is said that a pre-bid meeting was held and the queries received were consolidated and thereafter an amendment was issued. Basing on the final amendment, two bidders viz., (i) M/s.Dr.Pallem Peddeswara Rao of Health Care Center and (ii) M/s.Help Hospitals Pvt. Ltd., submitted three bids to cover the Government Hospitals in Andhra Pradesh for 13 locations, which were uploaded in e-procurement platform. Basing on the final amendment, two bidders viz., (i) M/s.Dr.Pallem Peddeswara Rao of Health Care Center and (ii) M/s.Help Hospitals Pvt. Ltd., submitted three bids to cover the Government Hospitals in Andhra Pradesh for 13 locations, which were uploaded in e-procurement platform. Three bids filed by bidders were in order, and two bidders were considered to be qualified in the technical evaluation. The bid finalisation committee resolved to consider the bids as responsive, thereby further resolved to open the price bids of the qualified bidders. It is further stated that the contracting authority will enter into an agreement with the Special Purpose Vehicle incorporated by the selected bidder. Selected bidder shall be the confirming party in the aforesaid agreement as per Format 7 Memorandum of Understanding. The parties agree with the proportion of shareholding among the parties, in the SPV which shall be as follows : (1) First party, (2) Second party, (3) Third party, (4) Fourth party. The parties have accepted that the Members, including the lead Member, whose technical capacity and financial capacity was evaluated for the purposes of qualification under this FRP shall hold at least 26 % of the subscribed and paid up equity of the SPV and all other members shall hold at least 10% each of the subscribed and paid up equity and SPV for the entire agreement period, provided that the Lead Member of the consortium shall at all times hold equity share capital of the SPV higher than the share capital held by any other member of the consortium. 11. Insofar as the allegation that the 4th respondent has not participated in the tender process and as such it cannot be a SPV, it is stated that the 4th respondent is an SPV which has entered into an MoU with successful bidder M/s.Help Hospitals Pvt. Ltd. and formed the Special Purpose Vehicle in the name of the 4th respondent. As such, the 2nd respondent issued Letters of Intent dated 25.7.2018 to M/s.Help Hospital Pvt. Ltd. for KGH, Visakhapatnam and GGH, Guntur, while Dr. Pallem Peddeswara Rao of M/s.Heart Care for GGH, Vijayawada for providing cath lab services. Having regard to the above, it is pleaded that there is no violation of any tender condition, much less the judgment of the Supreme Court or the guidelines issued by Central Vigilance Commission. 12. Pallem Peddeswara Rao of M/s.Heart Care for GGH, Vijayawada for providing cath lab services. Having regard to the above, it is pleaded that there is no violation of any tender condition, much less the judgment of the Supreme Court or the guidelines issued by Central Vigilance Commission. 12. The short point that arises for consideration is, “Whether the tender procedure followed by the respondent official authorities in awarding letters of intent to M/s.Help Hospitals Pvt. Ltd., who is not made a party to the writ petition is, illegal and improper? 13. It is to be noted here that initially in W.P. No.41301 of 2018, which came up before the learned Single Judge, was filed by a person who did not either participate in the tender process, or purchase an application or made an online application for the above tender. As no interim order could be obtained in the said Writ Petition, the PIL No.387 of 2018 came to be filed in the month of February, 2019 seeking identical relief. This PIL came to be filed after the finalization of tender in favour of M/s.Help Hospital Pvt. Ltd. One of the objections raised by the learned counsel for the respondents is that having failed to get any interim order and having regard to the opinion expressed by the court at the time of hearing, the second writ petition in the form of PIL came to be filed. Though counsel for the petitioners disputes the relationship of the petitioners in both the cases, but counsel for the respondent submits that documentary evidence shows that both are not strangers and that the person who filed PIL has close connections with the petitioner in W.P.No.41301 of 2018 i.e., M/s.Capex Health Care Pvt.Ltd., represented by its Managing Director Dr. Karthik Tummala. In order to prove the same, he placed on record the Bank Statements. The bank statements of Mr. Phani Kumar Chowdary and K.Prathima, who are petitioners in PIL No.387 of 2018, shows credit of Rs.12,500/- from Capex on 6.3.2018; further, on 7.5.2018 an amount of Rs.13,030/- was credit to the account from Capex. Similarly, again on 6.6.2018 an amount of Rs.12,500/- was given credit to the account through online payment from Capex. Similar such payment came to be made on 5.7.2018, 27.7.2018, 6.10.2018, 8.11.2018, 6.12.2018, 1.1.2019, 5.2.2019, 7.3.2019. Similarly, again on 6.6.2018 an amount of Rs.12,500/- was given credit to the account through online payment from Capex. Similar such payment came to be made on 5.7.2018, 27.7.2018, 6.10.2018, 8.11.2018, 6.12.2018, 1.1.2019, 5.2.2019, 7.3.2019. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that both of them have nothing to do with each other cannot be accepted. Further, the address mentioned by the petitioner in PIL, for banking purpose, is “son of Kamineni Gopalakrishna, D.No.29.19.20, ABC Imaging, Dornakal Road, Suryarao Pet, Vijayawada’. The address submitted by the petitioner in the PIL to the banker is nothing but that of the registered office of the petitioner company in the other writ petition. It could be seen from the above fact that the petitioner herein is a resident and employee of ABC Imaging as per the details provided to the banker. The said ABC Scans is owned by one, Dr. T. Gowthami Choudary, who is none other than one of the Directors of the petitioner-company in W.P.No.41301 of 2018, which is evident from the master data of the petitioner-company in W.P.No.41301 of 2018. Therefore, the argument that the petitioner in W.P.No.41301 of 2018, after having failed to achieve an interim order chose to file Public Interest Litigation, cannot be ruled out. The averments in the counter that the petitioner in PIL, works directly under one, Mr.Karthik Tummala, who is none other than the Managing Director of the petitioner-company in W.P.No.41301 of 2018 though disputed, prima facie found to be false. Even if disputed, the transactions of the petitioner’s bank account would show that he has close connections with Capex Company, otherwise, there was no reason for the said company to send Rs.13,000/- or Rs.12,500/- per month regularly. Therefore, it can be said that the Capex company, who is the petitioner in the writ petition, has not come to the Court with clean hands, which, according to us, is sufficient to dismiss both the writ petitions. 14. The second point urged by the petitioners is that the authorities have failed to follow the tender process, in terms of the guidelines of the Central Vigilance Commission. The entire basis for filing the writ petition is that the 4th respondent herein has no experience and does not fulfil the financial requirements of having the requisite turn over for awarding the contract. The entire basis for filing the writ petition is that the 4th respondent herein has no experience and does not fulfil the financial requirements of having the requisite turn over for awarding the contract. It is to be noted that M/s.Help Hospitals Pvt. Ltd. was not made a party to the writ petition and even no steps were taken to implead M/s.Help Hospital Pvt. Ltd. Be that as it may, the material on record reveal that the 3rd Respondent-Corporation, which is the enterprise of the Government of A.P., issued tender notice dated 23.5.2018, calling for online tenders for supply of flat panel digital cathlab in Government Hospitals under public-private partnership model for a period of ten years. Clause 3.4.1.3.4 suggest that all members of the consortium shall execute a binding Memorandum of Understanding in a specified format. Clause 3.3.1.7 suggests that a contracting authority shall enter into an agreement with Special Purpose Vehicle, incorporated by the selected bidder to be a confirming party in the said agreement. Clause 1 of Section V of Tender Document suggests that bidder shall be the sole provider (company/Society/Trust) or a group of companies (maximum3) coming together as a Consortium to implement the project. The Lead Member in case of consortium should have at least 51% stake in the consortium and must also have all legal liabilities. The bidder cannot be an individual or group of individuals. Additionally, the said clause requires the service provider to be registered as a legal entity such as company registered under Companies Act, Societies Registration Act, Trust Act or an equivalent body. As seen from the material available on record, after the tender notice dated 23.5.2018 was floated, three entities viz., (i) Help Hospitals Pvt. Ltd., (ii) Boppanna Medicare Private Limited and (iii) Sri Sai Balaji Spintex India Pvt. Ltd. executed a Memorandum of Understanding in Format-7 in the month of July, 2018, in accordance with the terms of tender notice and formed a consortium. Two partners of Consortium gave Special Power of Attorney dated 13.7.2018 in favour of M/s.Help Hospital Pvt. Ltd. and have agreed for Help Hospitals Pvt. Ltd. to be the lead Member. Hence, M/s.Help Hospitals submitted the online tender application which is in terms of Central Vigilance Commission guidelines. 15. Two partners of Consortium gave Special Power of Attorney dated 13.7.2018 in favour of M/s.Help Hospital Pvt. Ltd. and have agreed for Help Hospitals Pvt. Ltd. to be the lead Member. Hence, M/s.Help Hospitals submitted the online tender application which is in terms of Central Vigilance Commission guidelines. 15. An objection was raised as to whether the consortium lead by its lead Member has submitted its online tender application before 16.7.2018, which was last date for submitting the online application. The counsel for the respondent placed on record the material to show that bids were submitted before expiry of the time prescribed for submitting the online tender, which is not disputed by the petitioner. 16. The next issue is whether the clarifications given in the pre-bid meeting was to favour the 4th respondent? 17. Admittedly, pre-bid meeting was held on 30.5.2018 and the clarification sought for by the prospective bidders were given by the 3rd respondent during the said meeting which came to be published as amendment No.3, dated 5.7.2018. The said amendment only relates to listing of clarification sought by the prospective bidders and the consequential response of the 3rd respondent to such clarification. The remark at the end of the clarification being that cathlab shall be started only in those hospitals where there is a cardiac O.T. The list of cardiac O.Ts. were attached. Thereafter, another amendment issued by the 3rd respondent on 12.7.2018, which is in clarification of the previous amendment, wherein, while listing of locations and the availability of the Cardiac O.Ts. therein, it was mentioned as “for those centers where teaching hospitals do not have cardiac O.T., the service provider can tie up with any private hospital empanelled with NTRVST and be asked to provide ALS ambulance on case to case basis. This will allow the State Government to have cathlab service in all teaching hospitals.” From the clarifications given by the 3rd respondent, cardiac O.Ts. are available in GGH, Kurnool, GGH, Guntur, GGH, Visakhapatnam. Subsequent to the completion of pre-bid meetings, the clarifications made therein and subsequent amendments, the tender process was completed in accordance with the procedure contemplated in the request for proposal. The tenders submitted by the bidders were opened on 16.7.2018 and consequently letters of intent dated 25.7.2018 was issued in favour of M/s.Help Hospitals Pvt. Ltd. in relation to both GGH, Guntur and KGH, Visakhapatnam centers. The tenders submitted by the bidders were opened on 16.7.2018 and consequently letters of intent dated 25.7.2018 was issued in favour of M/s.Help Hospitals Pvt. Ltd. in relation to both GGH, Guntur and KGH, Visakhapatnam centers. The consortium has relied upon the experience and turn over of M/s.Help Hospital Pvt. Ltd. and other consortium members for making it eligible. These factual aspects were never disputed. In fact, the Help Hospital Pvt. Ltd. was never made party to any of the proceedings on a premise that the tender was awarded to the 4th respondent. The facts stated till now would clearly indicate that the parties have complied with the conditions stipulated in 3.4.1.3.4. Further, the record discloses participation of three tenderers out of whom two were found eligible. M/s.Help Hospitals succeeded in two centers, whereas entity by name, M/s.Heart Care, Vijayawada, was successful in getting the contract for GGH, Vijayawada center. Therefore, in addition to M/s.Help Hospitals, there existed another entity which was also successful in getting tender for one center. Further, if really any of the parties are aggrieved by the clarifications sought in the pre-bid meeting, it would be the person who actually participated in the tender. Dr.Pallem Peddeswara Rao of Health Care Center never objected to the clarifications given by the 3rd respondent, which, in fact, never gave any benefit to the awardee as observed by the 3rd respondent in the counter. Therefore, the argument that the pre-bid amendments/clarifications were issued only to favour the 4th respondent or the successful tenderer is incorrect. 18. Coming to clause 3.3.1.7 which deals with entering into an agreement with Special Purpose Vehicle, the counsel for the petitioners would contend that if really Special Purpose Vehicle was in existence, there was no necessity for them to make tender application through M/s.Help Hospital Pvt.Ltd. We are unable to accept the same. The clause referred to above clearly suggest that the contracting authority shall enter into agreement with Special Purpose Vehicle incorporated by the selected bidder and the selected bidder is required to be a confirming party in the aforesaid agreement. Therefore, only after the letter of intent is issued, the selected bidder would stand identified and only then incorporation of SPV by selected bidder would arise. Hence, one cannot find fault with the procedure of entering into agreement with the 4th respondent, to discharge its obligation under the contract. 19. Therefore, only after the letter of intent is issued, the selected bidder would stand identified and only then incorporation of SPV by selected bidder would arise. Hence, one cannot find fault with the procedure of entering into agreement with the 4th respondent, to discharge its obligation under the contract. 19. The argument with regard to the reference of SPV in Format 7 MoU is only to show the percentage of capital which the SPV should have and the percentage which the lead consortium should show. It is also to be noted here that the 4th respondent was incorporated on 13.4.2018, which was said to have purchased by the consortium and shown as SPV. The same cannot be said to be contrary to the term of the tender conditions. 20. One other argument that was advanced is that 4th respondent is not eligible and not entitled to compete with the contract notified vide tender notice dated 23.5.2018, in view of clause 6 of Section V of the tender document. The record shows that, it is not the respondent No.4, which has been awarded the contract. It is M/s.Help Hospital Pvt. Ltd. along with two others, who formed consortium, was awarded the contract with M/s.Help Hospital Pvt. Ltd. as its lead member. Subsequently, as per the terms of the tender document, they entered into agreement with the 4th respondent for executing the contract as Special Purpose Vehicle. In fact, in the agreement entered into between the Director of Medical Education and the 4th respondent, the name of the 4th respondent was shown as SPV. This agreement was made on 16.8.2018 for a period of 10 years. The said agreement prescribes the nature of contract and the responsibilities of service provider and payment to be made. Therefore, the argument that service provider/4th respondent has not entered into contract and it does not satisfy Clause 6 of section V of tender conditions and that it has no experience as required in the tender condition cannot be accepted. 21. The material available on record would show that the operations were commenced in GGH, Guntur on 10.12.2018 and KGH, Visakhapatnam on 6.2.2019 and no complaints whatsoever have been received with regard to the functioning of the cath labs. 22. 21. The material available on record would show that the operations were commenced in GGH, Guntur on 10.12.2018 and KGH, Visakhapatnam on 6.2.2019 and no complaints whatsoever have been received with regard to the functioning of the cath labs. 22. Summary of all the above would be, consortium in the form of MoU between three firms; tender was submitted with M/s.Help Hospital Pvt. Ltd. as a lead member of the consortium, complying with the requirement of RFP; tender was awarded in favour of M/s.Help Hospital Pvt. Ltd., Letters of Intent were given, pursuant to issuance of Letters of Intent, Special Purpose Vehicle in the form of the 4th respondent came to be formed maintaining the share capital pattern as specified in RFP and thereafter service agreement was executed between Director of Medical Education and the 4th respondent on 16.8.2018. Copies of all the documents were enclosed along with the writ petition, which may not be necessary to be referred, as both counsel never disputed the authenticity of documents, except the procedure that is followed. 23. In view of the above findings, we feel that the procedure and terms of contract have been followed and tender was rightly awarded in favour of M/s.Help Hospital Pvt. Ltd., who are executing the contract through SPV in terms of the tender conditions. 24. Hence, we see no merit and both writ petitions are accordingly dismissed, both on merits as well as on the ground that petitioners have not come to the court with clean hands. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.