ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI, J.

1. The petitioner has called into question the tender issued by the respondent No. 1 for the supply of power contending that certain terms and conditions of the tender are arbitrary and discriminator}'. It has also sought a writ that the first respondent's order, dated 14.9.2016 (Annexure-E) on the petitioner's representation seeking clarifications is not legal. The petitioner, who claims to be a prospective bidder, sought interim stay of the impugned tender process. On 26.9.2016, this Court turned down the petitioner's request for the grant of interim stay. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.A. No. 3869/2016, this Court turned down the petitioner's request for the grant of interim stay. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.A. No. 3869/2016. The Division Bench, by its order, dated 6.10.2016 directed the respondents not to award the contract without the leave of the Court. It was continued till the first week of January, 2017 by the Division Bench, by in order, dated 25.10.2016. In the meanwhile, the impugned tender process was called off vide first respondent Board's resolution, dated 18.11.2016 and the Letter of Award ('LOA' for sh