JUDGMENT : Ashutosh J. Shastri, J. 1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner is challenging the impugned order dated 06.04.2018 passed by the respondent authority and has sought for consequential relief of directing the respondent Corporation not to issue any such communication restricting entry of petitioner so as to stall his legitimate claim with the office of the respondent – Corporation. 2. The background of facts which have given rise to the present proceedings is that petitioner – firm is engaged in the business of supplying plywood, locks, handle, door and aluminum sections since last number of years and is a reputed firm of Ahmedabad. A tender came to be floated by the respondent – Corporation for supply of aluminum section and in the said tender process, petitioner – firm participated and having been found eligible, tender came to be accepted namely, Tender No. 5 STG/PUR/JN-1/C-55/St-B/ 2014-15 and work was awarded to the petitioner. Hence, petitioner is said to have supplied necessary material. The lab testing was also undertaken with regard to the samples which were supplied by the petitioner and according to the terms and conditions of the contract, petitioner – firm has supplied the material. But on account of some unforeseen circumstances, according to the petitioner, a show cause notice came to be issued on 29.11.2016 stating thereunder, that goods supplied by the petitioner was not in order and as such, called upon petitioner to show cause as to why contract shall not be cancelled. Said notice was duly replied to by the petitioner through its advocate on 15.12.2016 inter alia contending that necessary material as per the terms and conditions have been supplied and the allegations which have been levelled in the show cause notice are far from truth. It has been pointed out that petitioner – firm is dealing with the Corporation since number of years, but on account of some business rivalry and other disputes, petitioner is sought to be targeted. It is contended, once again, on 13.02.2017, another notice came to be issued for this very reason calling upon the petitioner to remain present on 18.02.2017 and vide further show cause notice dated 27.02.2017 petitioner was called upon to remain present on 06.03.2017. It is contended, once again, on 13.02.2017, another notice came to be issued for this very reason calling upon the petitioner to remain present on 18.02.2017 and vide further show cause notice dated 27.02.2017 petitioner was called upon to remain present on 06.03.2017. The respondent Corporation according to the petitioner passed an order on 26.04.2017 under which, it has been ordered that no business transaction with the firm of the petitioner is to be effected for a period from 26.04.2017 to 25.10.2017. According to petitioner, a further order also came to be passed on the basis of very same material and by virtue of this second order dated 05.10.2017, petitioner – firm has been blacklisted for a period of five years i.e. 26.10.2017 to 25.10.2022. 2.1. It is the case of the petitioner that order passed by the respondent authority of blacklisting petitioner for a period of five years is absolutely without application of mind; without following any procedure established by law; and, impugned order is cryptic which has constrained the petitioner to approach this Court by way of Special Civil Application 20972 of 2017. The said petition was contested by the respondent authority by filing reply and later on petition was heard at length and prima facie reply affidavit was in favour of the petitioner and at that stage, the respondent authority came out with a statement that they are withdrawing the order impugned in the said Special Civil Application 20972 of 2017 and would give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner afresh and based upon such submission, the order of blacklisting was withdrawn and petition came to be disposed of with a rider as contained in order dated 19.02.2018. 2.2. The grievance of the petitioner that though statement was made before the Division Bench about withdrawal of order of blacklisting, no communication to that effect has been issued till date and once again a show cause notice was issued by the respondent authority on 17.03.2018 stated thereunder that respondent – Corporation is intending to initiate proceedings afresh, without any documents being made available to the petitioner. Petitioner is said to have made a request to the respondent authority by forwarding a notice on 26.03.2018. Petitioner is said to have made a request to the respondent authority by forwarding a notice on 26.03.2018. The grievance of the petitioner was also voiced out about non supply of the order of withdrawal as indicated above, and petitioner’s representative was not even permitted to enter the premises of the Corporation and as such, petitioner is said to have requested the respondent to provide documents and allow the petitioner to enter the premises of respondent. But despite reminders having been sent on 28.03.2018 and repeated representations made, no attention has been paid by respondent. Later on, when insisted by petitioner, respondent authority called upon petitioner to remain present on 02.04.2018, intending to handover relevant documents. Petitioner had remained present on 31.03.2018 as well as on 02.04.2018, and neither documents were furnished nor hearing was extended to petitioner and as such, petitioner is said to have requested respondent to supply documents. It is upon such persistent request made by petitioner on 02.04.2018, certain documents were said to have been made available to the petitioner and rojkam was also drawn on 02.04.2018 and on preparation of said rojkam on their own, petitioner was informed by respondent that Corporation would intimate the next date of hearing and thereafter surprisingly, on 06.04.2018 namely, within a period of three days from the date of furnishing documents, impugned order came to be passed against the petitioner whereby for a period of five years, petitioner was declared as disqualified to deal with the Corporation in respect of all contracts and it is this order which has been passed by the respondent authority which is subject matter of present petition. 3. The petition was entertained by this Court by issuance of notice to respondent vide order dated 25.07.2018 and subsequently, after completion of pleadings it has come up for consideration after four (4) years. 4. Mr. Ashish Dagli, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner though has raised multiple contentions in the petition, has fairly submitted before the Court that period of five years of disqualification imposed upon petitioner by impugned order dated 06.04.2018 has lapsed and as such, practically cause does not survive. 4. Mr. Ashish Dagli, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner though has raised multiple contentions in the petition, has fairly submitted before the Court that period of five years of disqualification imposed upon petitioner by impugned order dated 06.04.2018 has lapsed and as such, practically cause does not survive. However, he has seriously voiced out an apprehension that Corporation will use this order against petitioner, if not set aside, in future contracts namely for the purposes of not considering the tender that may be submitted by the petitioner in the event of Corporation floating any further tender/s and as such he has requested that if that part of the impugned order is clarified, he would not have much grievance to redress to agitate since period of five years is already over on October, 2022. Hence, without much resistance or raising any further grievance with regard to the impugned order, a request is made to dispose of the petition by making observation as prayed for and it would array the apprehension of the petitioner. 5. As against this, Mr. Hardik Raval, learned counsel appearing for the respondent – authority has submitted that order impugned was passed by the respondent authority after giving due opportunity to the petitioner and after considering the relevant material as indicated in the order itself and as such, impugned order cannot be said to be suffering from any infirmity. Further Mr. Raval, has submitted that if apprehension as voiced out by the petitioner about future participation of petitioner in any tender/s that may be floated by the respondent – Corporation, this Court may pass such orders as it deems proper since main prayer sought for in the petition has become infructuous as the order itself has got spent itself. Hence, requested the Court to pass suitable orders in the interest of justice. 6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having gone through the material on record, including the impugned order, we have noticed that impugned order has been passed by the respondent authority after giving due opportunity to the petitioner. Since this Court is not called upon by petitioner to examine its validity at length in view of lapse of time of five years debarment period imposed under impugned order, we desist from observing anything on merits, considering the request of the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner. 6.1. Since this Court is not called upon by petitioner to examine its validity at length in view of lapse of time of five years debarment period imposed under impugned order, we desist from observing anything on merits, considering the request of the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner. 6.1. From perusal of the impugned order dated 06.04.2018, we have noticed that petitioner has been esttoped from dealing with the Corporation in any kind of business transaction for a period of five years’ and said five years period undisputedly has already come to an end in October, 2022 itself. The period of debarment having lapsed, challenge laid to said order does not survive for any further consideration. Even respondent Corporation has also stated that no such eventuality so far has arisen which can be apprehended about petitioner’s bid not being considered in future. Hence, considering the peculiar background of facts which are prevailing on record and in view of the facts of earlier proceedings having been gone through to some extent, namely petitioner was aggrieved by in-action of the respondent authority in non-supply of necessary material. However, the fact that undisputedly, petitioner appears to have dealt with the Corporation since many years and in view of the peculiar nature of cause, we deem it proper to dispose of the petition by observing that since we have not gone into the merits of the impugned order and the petition is disposed of on account of lapse of time about period having been lapsed of such disqualification. This disposal will not come in the way of the petitioner dealing in future with the respondent in respect of any tender that may be floated by the respondent Corporation. 7. Subject to above observation, we dispose of the present petition as having become infructuous. Rule stands discharged. No order as to costs.