JUDGMENT Vipin Sanghi, CJ. - The petitioners preferred the present petition in May 2022 to assail the declaration of respondent No. 3 as technically qualified. Respondent No. 3 emerges as L-1 bidder, whereas the petitioner was adjudged as L-2 bidder. 2. Since May 2022, the matter is pending, and has not been pressed by the petitioners. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 states that the respondent No. 3 has already completed the work awarded to it on 12.12.2022. 3. This petition has, therefore, become infructuous, and is dismissed as such.