ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. Suyash Dhar, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. V.R. Tiwari, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner participated in the Notice Inviting Tender (for short, the NIT) dated 19.04.2022 floated by the respondent No. 1 for Drivage (Coal Excavation and Mining) of 2 numbers incline stone drifts at Jhagrakhand Mine, Hasdeo Area. The estimated cost of work was Rs. 6.19 Crore and the last date of submission of bid was 14.05.2022. 3. It appears that pursuant to the said NIT, only two tenderers submitted their tenders. Technical bid was opened on 16.05.2022. The technical bid of the petitioner was rejected on 29.08.2022 on the ground that the petitioner had failed to qualify the requirement of NIT regarding work experience. The same was reflected in the technical summary dated 29.08.2022 issued by the respondents in their website. On the very same day, the respondents cancelled the NIT dated 19.04.2022. Thereafter, a fresh NIT dated 26.09.2022 was issued by the respondent No. 1 on the very same scope of the work as indicated in the NIT dated 19.04.2022. 4. The present writ petition is filed for setting aside the technical summary dated 29.08.2022, the order of cancellation of the NIT dated 19.04.2022 as well as issuance of fresh NIT dated 26.09.2022. 5. It is an admitted position that the petitioner had participated in the fresh NIT dated 26.09.2022. 6. Mr. Tiwari has submitted that recourse to cancellation of the NIT dated 19.04.2022 had to be taken in view of the fact that both the tenderers were disqualified in the technical bid. It is also submitted by him that the technical bid in respect of the subsequent NIT dated 26.09.2022 has been opened and the same is under evaluation. 7. The petitioner has filed this application on 17.10.2022 after participating in the subsequent NIT dated 26.09.2022 and therefore, at this distance of time, this Court is not inclined to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to consider the prayers made by the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 9. At this juncture, Mr. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 9. At this juncture, Mr. Shrivastava submits that rejection of the technical bid of the petitioner in response to the earlier NIT dated 19.04.2022 on the ground that it does not fulfill the requisite work experience, is not tenable in law and therefore, on the same ground, even though the petitioner has participated in the subsequent NIT, there is every likelihood that its tender would again be rejected. 10. We will not predicate the course of action which will be taken by the respondents. If any such eventuality as submitted by Mr. Shrivastava arises, the petitioner would be at liberty to assail the same and dismissal of this petition will not come in the way of the petitioner in pursuing remedy as we have expressed no opinion on merits with regard to the case of either of the parties.