ORDER : ARAVIND KUMAR, J. 1. The Petitioners have sought for the following reliefs:- "9.(B) That your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 04.06.2022 (Annexure-A) passed by the Respondent No.2 - The Commissioner, Fisheries Department, State of Gujarat canceling the fishing lease of Panam Reservoir granted to the petitioners by Office Order dated 07.06.2021 and be pleased to direct the authorities to permit the petitioners to work and carry out fishing activity in Panam Reservoir as per the contract award to the petitioners by office order dated 07.06.2021. (C) You Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari by quashing and setting aside the impugned notice dated 18.07.2022 (Annexure-B) inviting fresh tender for Panam Reservoir with all further and consequential action and be pleased to issue writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from awarding fishing contract to any third party during the lease period of fishing contract awarded to the petitioners by office order dated 07.06.2021." 2. The grievance of the petitioners as urged and canvassed in the petition is to the effect that they are Cooperative Societies both registered under the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 and contending inter alia that order dated 04.06.2022 canceling the contract and inviting fresh tender as per communication dated 18.07.2022 (Annexure-B) on the ground that petitioners were awarded the contract for fishing rights for a period of five years, commencing from 01.08.2020 to 31.05.2025 by office order dated 07.06.2021 and said order was sought to be canceled by the impugned order dated 04.06.2022 is erroneous. Contending inter alia that petitioners are engaged in activity of providing employment to local tribal of Panchmahal by engaging them in fishing work and the members of the petitioners' society belong to Schedule Tribe and other Backward Classes and for their benefit, the Cooperative Societies have been established and in tune with the extant policy the contract was awarded. It is further pleaded that petitioners were granted contract for fishing in 2011 for a period of 10 years and on completion of said period of 10 years e-tender notice was issued in the year 2021. It is further pleaded that petitioners were granted contract for fishing in 2011 for a period of 10 years and on completion of said period of 10 years e-tender notice was issued in the year 2021. It is also contended that Panam Reservoir, where the fishing rights were given to the petitioners, is situated in a tribal area and as per the lease policy for inland water reservoir fishering dated 25.02.2004, it is required to be awarded to tribal fishery society at upset price. Hence, petitioners are said to have submitted the tender jointly and awarded the tender for upset price of 6,14,480/- for a period of five years, commencing from 01.08.2020 to 31.05.2025 to be renewed for a further period of five years on respondents finding that the contract having been satisfactorily executed by the petitioners. On account of certain amounts not having been paid as agreed under the tender conditions, the impugned action was initiated against the petitioners and undisputedly for a period of two years (approximately) due to prevalent Pandemic the rights of the fishing obtained by the petitioners could not be executed. Hence, petitioners contended that they could not make payment of lease amount as agreed under the contract on the ground of financial stringency and there has been delay. However, respondents by the impugned order dated 04.06.2022 having cancelled the contract or terminated, had invited fresh Bids which has been impugned in the present writ petition. Contending inter alia that representations submitted by the petitioners have not been considered and despite request made to continue the contract and allow the petitioners to carry out the fishing activity, same has not been accepted and on account of there being no response to the representations submitted by the petitioners, the online notice issued, calling for tender is liable to be quashed. 3. 3. Having regard to the averments made in the petition and accepting the plea put forward, namely, which was to the effect that the members of the petitioners are belonging to Schedule Tribe and Backward Classes and there is likelihood of their livelihood being jeopardized, this Court by order dated 16.09.2022 had granted ad-interim ex parte order in terms of the prayer sought for in paragraph-9(D), which is to the following effect:- "9.(D) Pending admission hearing and final disposal of this petition, by way of interim relief, your Lordships may be pleased to stay the operation, implementation and execution of the impugned order dated 04.06.2022 (Annexure-A) passed by Respondent No.2, the Commissioner, Fisheries Department, State of Gujarat and be pleased to direct respondent authorities to permit the petitioners to work and carry out the fishing activity in Panam Reservoir as per the contract and be pleased to stay all further proceedings of and in pursuance of online e-tender notice dated 18.07.2022 (Annexure-B) issued by the respondent no.2 and be pleased to restrain the respondent authorities from awarding to fresh contract of fishing activity in Panam Jalashay to any third party." 4. We have heard the arguments of Shri Vikram J. Thakor, learned counsel appearing for first petitioner, Shir Sandip M. Patel, learned counsel who submits that he has appeared on behalf of second petitioner with NOC from the previous counsel and Shri Chintan Dave, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent State. 5. It is the contention of Shri Vikram J. Thakor, learned counsel that he has been instructed to withdraw the Special Civil Application whereas Shir Sandip M. Patel, learned counsel submits that in view of NOC having been obtained from the previous counsel, 2nd petitioner intends to prosecute this application. The learned Assistant Government Pleader has placed on record the order dated 01.09.2022 which would clearly disclose that even as on 16.09.2022 namely the date on which this matter was listed before the Court and interim order came to be passed at the insistence of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the first petitioner had already been intimated by respondents on 01.09.2022 itself about first petitioner having been awarded fresh contract and respondent having received an amount of Rs.2,62,842/- from first petitioner which was in furtherance of the fresh tender floated on 18.07.2022. The learned Assistant Government Pleader would also draw the attention of the Court to the signature found on the said communication dated 01.09.2022 which would clearly disclose that first petitioner had received the said communication. Since both the petitioners have filed this petition, it has to be necessarily held they were within the know how of this development, namely, in furtherance of the fresh online tender dated 18.07.2022 floated the first petitioner having offered its Bid and same having been accepted and communicated by the respondent to the first petitioner about acceptance of the Bid which was acknowledged by the first petitioner. Yet suppressing this fact, interim order was obtained by the petitioners on 16.09.2022. Thus, we are of the considered view that both the petitioners are guilty of suppressio veri suggestio falsi (suppressing true fact and suggesting falsehood before Court). 6. Had the true facts been laid before the Court, this Court would not have passed the interim order on 16.09.2022. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered view that petitioners are liable to be mulcted with costs. In the normal course, we would have imposed exemplary costs. Having regard to the fact that members of the petitioner - societies are hailing from tribal area and are eking out their livelihood by carrying out the fishing activities, we are of the considered view that ends of justice would be met if reasonable costs is imposed. Accordingly, we impose costs of Rs.1,000/- payable by each of the petitioners to the Chief Minister's Flood Relief Fund. In the event of such costs is not paid by the petitioners, the jurisdictional Deputy Collector, namely, the Deputy Collector, Panchmahal is at liberty to recover the same from both the petitioners as arrears of land revenue. 7. Insofar as permission sought for by the counsel appearing for petitioner No.1 to withdraw the petition is concerned, we will have to necessarily hold that such permission have to be accorded particularly in view of the subsequent development and in the background of the prayer sought for in the petition by the first petitioner having stood exhausted or got spent itself. We also permit Shir Sandip M. Patel, learned counsel to appear for second petitioner and Shri Vikram J. Thakor, learned counsel to retire from the case on behalf of petitioner No. 2 in view NOC having been given. We also permit Shir Sandip M. Patel, learned counsel to appear for second petitioner and Shri Vikram J. Thakor, learned counsel to retire from the case on behalf of petitioner No. 2 in view NOC having been given. We also dismiss the petition filed by the second petitioner as cause of action does not survive since during the pendency of the present proceedings as already noticed hereinabove, fresh tender process having been commenced pursuant to the impugned notification dated 18.07.2022 and in the said process, Bids having been received and first petitioner having been declared as the successful bidder pursuant to which the letter of acceptance dated 01.09.2022 having already been issued in favour of the first petitioner, the prayer sought for by the second petitioner to continue the earlier order dated 04.06.2022 to be in operation or to be continued cannot be accepted. Hence, reserving liberty to the second petitioner to challenge the award of tender in favour of the first petitioner, if so advised, and subject to just exceptions, if any, the present petition stands dismissed.