JUDGMENT : Harsha Devani, J. 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the action of the respondent No. 1 of allotting work order to the respondent No. 2 and has prayed that the same be declared null and void. The petitioner further seeks a direction to the respondent No. 1 not to make any payment to the respondent No. 2 and to restrain the respondent No. 1 from allotting any work order to the respondent No. 2. The petitioner further seeks a direction to the respondent No. 1 to follow fresh procedure in accordance with law. 2. The facts stated briefly are that the respondent No. 1 Nagar Palika had issued a tender notice dated 27.02.2019 in the daily newspaper Gujarat Samachar, inviting bids with respect to the tender floated by it. The bids were asked for on a yearly basis through registered post. 3. The petitioner tendered his bid with respect to dustbins. In terms of the tender conditions mentioned in the tender notice, 2500 units of good quality dustbins of the size of 10 litres and 20 litres were to be supplied to the respondent No. 1 Nagar Palika. The petitioner participated in the tender process by submitting his bid vide letter dated 04.03.2019. It is the case of the petitioner that apprehending malpractice and illegality in the procedure, the petitioner vide communication dated 08.03.2019 requested the respondent No. 1 Nagar Palika to open the bids in the presence of bidders, which was not answered. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that on account of elections, the tender process could not take place and the same was stalled and that upon conclusion of the elections, the petitioner approached the respondent No. 1 Nagar Palika with a request to process the tender and renewed the request to open the bids in the presence of the bidders. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that thereafter, there was no further communication from the respondent No. 1 Nagar Palika. The petitioner, therefore, made an application dated 20.12.2019, seeking information regarding the manner in which the tender process had been conducted; however, there was no response thereto. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that thereafter, there was no further communication from the respondent No. 1 Nagar Palika. The petitioner, therefore, made an application dated 20.12.2019, seeking information regarding the manner in which the tender process had been conducted; however, there was no response thereto. It is the case of the petitioner that its apprehension turned out to be true and that upon inquiry, it was found that the work order had been issued in favour of the respondent No. 2 for Rs. 24,00,000/- dehors the procedure. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition. 6. Mr. H.A. Dave, learned advocate for the petitioner, submitted that the respondent No. 1 Nagar Palika did not invite the bidders when the bids were to be opened nor were the bids opened in their presence. It was submitted that the petitioner was also not communicated regarding the rejection of his bid. It was submitted that without finalizing the bids, the respondent No. 1 Nagar Palika could not have allotted the work to any person, despite which, it has awarded the work contract to the respondent No. 2. 6.1. The learned advocate for the petitioner placed on record a compilation of documents furnished to him under the Right to Information Act, 2005. It was pointed out that though the respondent No. 1 Nagar Palika, in the tender notice had given approximate requirement of 2500 pieces of dustbins; the actual order placed with the respondent No. 2 is much higher. It was pointed out that the respondent No. 1 Nagar Palika had set aside Rs. 20,00,000/- for the purpose of purchasing dustbins; whereas, the order placed with the respondent No. 2 is for more than Rs. 24,00,000/-. It was submitted that if the respondent No. 1 Nagar Palika wanted to purchase more than what was advertised in the tender notice, a fresh tender ought to have been issued. It was accordingly urged that the matter requires consideration. 7. A perusal of the documents produced by the petitioner indicates that, in all, there were five bidders who had submitted their bids in respect of dustbins. The respondent No. 2 Shelsons Corporation had bid the lowest at Rs. 152/-, whereas the petitioner had bid Rs. 153/-. Thus, it appears that the tender has been awarded in favour of the lowest bidder. 8. The respondent No. 2 Shelsons Corporation had bid the lowest at Rs. 152/-, whereas the petitioner had bid Rs. 153/-. Thus, it appears that the tender has been awarded in favour of the lowest bidder. 8. While it is true that the respondent No. 1 Nagar Palika has not invited the bidders at the time of opening the tender nor has it thereafter called the bidders for negotiations for inter se bidding, it appears that at present the tender process is already over and the orders have been placed and already executed. Under the circumstances, the petition, insofar as it challenges the award of contract in favour of the respondent No. 2, has become infructuous. 9. Insofar as the respondent No. 1 Nagar Palika having placed an order beyond what was stated in the tender notice is concerned, the same cannot be subject-matter of a writ petition at the instance of the petitioner, who is an interested party and who had participated in the bid. Moreover, the learned advocate for the petitioner has stated that fresh tenders have already been invited. Under the circumstances, no case has been made out for interference. The petition, therefore, fails and is, accordingly, summarily dismissed.