Writ petition rendered infructuous upon expiry of tender period notwithstanding challenge to subsequent tender notices.

The petitioners, a cooperative society and its Chairman, challenged the finalization of Tender No. 055EE23-23-30 (opened on 17.06.2022) by the East Central Railway.

The tender concerned licensing for water control and fishing rights in the Mansi-Pasraha section for a 36-month period (01.04.2022 to 31.03.2025).

The tender was awarded to Respondent No. 6, a construction company, which the petitioners alleged ignored their preferential rights under Railway Board policy letters dated 19.01.1987 and 05.04.1989.

During the pendency of the writ, the petitioners filed an interlocutory application to stay a subsequent tender published on 06.02.2026.

1. Whether the challenge to the tender process for the period 2022–2025 remains maintainable after the expiry of the tender period.

2. Whether a subsequent tender notice issued on a separate cause of action can be challenged through an interlocutory application in the existing writ petition.

The Court applied the doctrine of "infructuous" litigation, where a matter loses its practical relevance due to the lapse of time or change in circumstances.

Additionally, the Court followed procedural law principles regarding "cause of action," holding that a fresh tender notice constitutes a separate cause of action requiring a fresh challenge rather than an amendment or interlocutory stay in an expired claim.

The Court observed that the original tender under challenge was for a specific duration ending 31.03.2025. Since that period had lapsed by the time of the hearing (12.05.2026), the primary relief sought regarding the 2022 tender had become infructuous through the "efflux of time".

Regarding the petitioners’ attempt to stop the new tender process (dated 06.02.2026) via an interlocutory application, the Court reasoned that this constituted a "completely separate cause of action".

While the petitioners argued the award to Respondent No. 6 was illegally contrary to Railway policy, the Court determined that such merits could not revive an expired tender period but could be raised in a fresh proceeding.

The interlocutory applications were also disposed of as the Court refused to entertain challenges to the subsequent tender of 2026 within this petition. However, the Court granted the petitioners liberty to file a separate writ application specifically challenging the open e-tender notice dated 06.02.2026.