VIRENDER SINGH,J. - (1.) VIRENDER SINGH,J. Appellant is the writ petitioner (hereinafter referred to as petitioner). It, being aggrieved of the order dated 24.06.2015, whereby writ petition filed by it being W.P(C) No. 5524 of 2012 having been dismissed as infructuous, preferred the instant Letters Patent Appeal, in which there is delay of five days as pointed out by the Registry. Admittedly, the petitioner did not lay motion for condonation of delay of the said five days in filing the appeal. Not only that, even after this defect was pointed out by the Registry, the petitioner did not bother to move formal application seeking condonation of delay for about eight long months and ultimately filed I.A. No. 1848 of 2016. We, without entering into the length of the delay in filing the appeal, allow the said application as neither Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Nigam Ltd., nor Counsel appearing for other respondents has raised any serious objection to the said application. We, thus, condone the said delay by allowing I.A. No. 1848 of 2016. L.P.A. No. 413 of 2015: The petitioner challenged the decision of respondent nos. 1 and 2, whereby, the petitioner was disqualified in the tender for appointment of Electricity Distribution Franchisee for Ranchi and Jamshedpur, which was allotted to respondent nos. 3 and 4. During the pendency of main lis (W.P(C) No. 5524 of 2012), the appointment of Distribution Franchisee for the said two places in favour of respondent nos. 3 and 4 was cancelled and the respondent nos. 3 and 4 had thrown challenge to the said order by filing a separate writ application. Under these circumstances, learned Writ Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner as infructuous, however, liberty was given to the petitioner to file a case, if cause of action revives.
(2.) Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
(3.) Mr. Indrajit Sinha submits that during the pendency of the instant appeal, fresh development has taken place as the writ petition filed by respondent nos. 3 and 4 challenging the order of cancellation of their appointment as Distribution Franchisee stands allowed and the order of cancellation quashed. Mr. Sinha states that because of the fresh development, the cause of action revives and therefore, prayer made herein is that the impugned order dismissing the writ petition as rendered infructuous may kindly be set aside for hearing the main petition, afresh on merits. He further submitted that when the main writ petition came to be dismissed as infructuous, the pleadings were complete in all respects and in case the petitioner has to file a fresh writ petition as one finds from the liberty granted to the petitioner by the Writ Court itself, it would unnecessarily delay the proceedings for considerably long period, which, in any case, would not be in the interest of justice.;