JUDGMENT Krishna S. Dixit, J. - Petitioner, a party-in-person is knocking at the doors of Writ Court grieving against non-consideration of his representations all dated 24.12.2021 (Annexures A to C) wherein he has sought for an enquiry against the 5th respondent - M/S. Intellic Systems, allegedly in securing the tender work by fraud & fabrication. He contends that the said Respondent has produced fake documents pursuant to which his bid came to be accepted in the second tender process and therefore the award of contract vide order bearing No: DET/TRG/PUR - 06/CR - 02/2021 - 22 dated 09.12.2021, a copy whereof avails at Annexure J needs to be invalidated. 2. Learned AAG, Mr. Dhyan Chinnappa appearing for the official respondents resists the writ petition making submission in justification of the impugned order and the award of work to the 5th respondent, arguing that the petitioner was neither a participant in the tender process nor is an 'aggrieved person' and thus, has no locus standi. He hastens to add, even otherwise, the petition has become infructuous inasmuch as, the tender work having already been completed long ago. The W.P.No.4092/2022 between M/s Accura Equipment vs. Government Of Karnataka filed by another bidder laying a challenge to the very same tender, having been withdrawn on 22.09.2022, nothing survives for consideration. So contending he seeks dismissal of writ petition. 3. Having heard the party-in-person & the learned Addl. Advocate General for official respondents and having perused the petition papers, this Court being broadly in agreement with the submission of learned AAG, declines indulgence in the matter for the following reasons: (a) The tender process having already been completed and the awarded work too having been accomplished, nothing emanates from the contentions urged in the writ petition and nothing comes to the aid of petitioner. The vehement contention of petitioner that the 5th respondent lacked requisite experience of having supplied the items to the governmental authorities cannot be a matter of deeper examination at the hands of this court exercising a limited supervisory jurisdiction constitutionally vested u/a 227 vide Sadhana Lodh vs. National Insurance Company Limited (2003) 3 SCC 524 . (b) No indulgence even otherwise is called for in this case because the tender work has already been accomplished and the challenge to award of tender by another bidder having been withdrawn as already mentioned above. (b) No indulgence even otherwise is called for in this case because the tender work has already been accomplished and the challenge to award of tender by another bidder having been withdrawn as already mentioned above. Both the tender floating authority and the government have considered the matter in the right perspective and that no error is demonstrated from the record, warranting interference of this Court despite vociferous submissions of petitioner. (c) Admittedly, the first tender process having been cancelled, the second was awarded to the 5th Respondent after financial analysis; there is no substantiation of alleged irregularity in the tender process and the specific prejudice caused to petitioner or to the public interest. That apart, the tender work itself has been completed and therefore, the claim of petitioner withers away by efflux of time & performance of contract. It is a well settled position of law that non-observance of principles of natural justice in tender related matters per se, is not actionable in the absence of specific prejudice caused to the party complaining in constitutional jurisdiction. The Apex Court in a catena of decisions has reiterated that in matters of tender, judicial review is 'judicial restraint' vide Utkal Suppliers v. Ma Kanak Durga EnterpreiseS, 2021 SCC online SC 30, cannot be lost sight of. 4. In the above circumstances, this petition being thoroughly devoid of merits is liable to be rejected and accordingly it is however costs having been made reluctantly easy.