ORDER : 1. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the writ applicant has prayed for the following reliefs: “(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the decision of the Respondent No. 2 in disqualifying the Petitioner from the tender bearing No. VSCDL/STL/SLL/05/2019-20. (B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the Respondent No. 2 to test the samples of the Petitioner in accordance with the tender conditions and under normal circumstances and to consider the bid of the Petitioner. (BB) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the decision of the Respondent No. 2 in qualifying the Respondent No. 3, awarding it the tender inquiry bearing no. VSCDL/STL/SLL/05/2019-2020 and issuing Work Order dated 29th October, 2020, to the Respondent No. 3. (C) Pending hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to restrain the Respondent No. 2 from proceeding further with the tender inquiry bearing no. VSCDL/STL/SLL/05/2019-2020. (CC) Pending hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to restrain the Respondent No. 2 and the Respondent No. 3 from proceedings further with or taking any steps pursuant to the Work Order dated 29th October, 2020, issued to the Respondent No. 3 by the Respondent No. 2 with regard to the tender inquiry bearing no. VSCDL/STL/SLL/05/2019-2020. (D) An ex-parte ad interim relief in terms of Para 9(C) may kindly be granted. (E) Your Lordships may be pleased to grant any other and further reliefs as may be deemed just and proper in the interest of justice and fitness of things.” 2. We have heard Mr. Anuj K. Trivedi, the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant, Mr. Maulik Nanavati, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1 and 2 respectively and Mr. Paras K. Sukhwani, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3. 3. We have heard Mr. Anuj K. Trivedi, the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant, Mr. Maulik Nanavati, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1 and 2 respectively and Mr. Paras K. Sukhwani, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3. 3. We need not delve much into the facts of this case as we intend to dispose of this writ application on a short ground. 4. The Vadodara Smart City Development Ltd., floated a tender inviting bids from the interested parties for supply, erection, testing and commissioning of Smart Street Lighting System for the main roads within municipal limits of Vadodara. The work involved replacing the 12,000 High Pressure Sodium Vapor (HPSV) type light fitting to the LED light fitting with accessories including 10 KV external surge protections, dimmable drivers and smart communicable controllers with necessary cables. Additionally, 3000 light fixtures which were previously converted to LED were to be fitted with smart communicable streetlight controllers. 5. In all five parties participated in the tender process. The Tata Consulting Engineers Ltd., was appointed by the Company to perform the work of scrutinizing the documents etc. Ultimately, at the end of the scrutiny the contract came to be awarded to the respondent No. 3. In such circumstances, the writ applicant came before this Court with the present writ application redressing the grievance that the contract ought not to have been awarded in favour of the respondent No. 3 but the same should have been awarded in his favour. 6. We take notice of the fact that initially the challenge was only to the disqualification of the writ applicant with a prayer to issue appropriate directions to the Company to retest the sample. Later the writ application came to be amended. In the amended memo the writ applicant pointed out that the respondent No. 3 herein had not submitted the documents which were mandatorily required to be submitted in accordance with the terms of the tender notice and in such circumstances the respondent No. 3 should have been disqualified from offering his bid. 7. Mr. In the amended memo the writ applicant pointed out that the respondent No. 3 herein had not submitted the documents which were mandatorily required to be submitted in accordance with the terms of the tender notice and in such circumstances the respondent No. 3 should have been disqualified from offering his bid. 7. Mr. Trivedi, the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant clarified that at a point of time when his client came to be disqualified the contract was not awarded in favour of the respondent No. 3, later when the contract came to be awarded in favour of the respondent No. 3 he had to move an amendment application and seek further appropriate reliefs. 8. This writ application is of the year 2020. Indisputably as on date the respondent No. 3 has supplied all 12,000 LED luminaries with accessories. Apart from the same 11,700 LED fittings have been installed on the street pole. No doubt, it is true that the contract in favour of the respondent No. 3 was awarded subject to the final outcome of the present writ application, but as a writ Court we should not ignore the fact that all the supplies under the contract have been made by the respondent No. 3 and the objective of the tender stands fulfilled. Any interference at the end of this Court may lead to cancellation of contract awarded in favour of the respondent No. 3 and in turn it would lead to wastage of public exchequer. 9. In such circumstances referred to above, adjudicating this writ application now at this point of time on merits will be an exercise in futility. 10. For all the foregoing reasons, we dispose of this writ application in the aforesaid terms. 11. It is clarified that we have otherwise not gone into the merits of the matter nor we have expressed any prima facie opinion on the merits of the matter.