By the Court.—Heard Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Sangeeta Chandra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel III for the State.

2. Supplementary counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 2, is taken on record.

3. This petition has been filed by a democratically elected local body Zila Panchayat, Balrampur through its Chairperson, Smt. Huma Rizwan assailing the order dated 23.9.2015 as well as the orders dated 8.8.2015 and 10.8.2015 whereby the tender proceedings for the purpose of execution of certain work pursuant to a resolution passed by the Zila Panchayat have been annulled by the District Magistrate/Collector, Balrampur on the ground of irregularities with a further direction to re-invite tenders as stipulated therein.

4. The matter had been heard earlier by us and the learned Counsel for the State had been called upon to file an appropriate affidavit relating to any further developments in the matter.

5. Today an affidavit has been filed in compliance of our earlier order dated 27.10.2015 bringing on record the order dated 26.10.2015 whereby the impugned order dated 23.9.2015 has been annulled and withdrawan. The affidavit has been taken on record. Thus one of the main reliefs claimed by the petitioner stands exhausted with the withdrawal of the said order.

6. Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, however vehemently urges that withdrawal of the said order does not suffice inasmuch as the second respondent namely Collector/District Magistrate, Balrampur has malafidely exercised powers by restraining the opening of tenders and as such the orders date 8.8.2015 and 10.8.2015 staying the tender process also deserves to be quashed, keeping in view the nature of the withdrawal order dated 26.10.2015 that in a guarded way proposes an action to be taken by the learned Commissioner.

7. While proceeding with the matter, we called upon the learned Counsel to address the Court on the availability of the powers with the District Magistrate and the Prescribed Authority as contemplated under Sections 225 and 228 of the U.P. Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961 to resolve the jurisdictional issue. It appears realising the impact of the same, the second respondent passed the withdrawal order dated 26.10.2015.

8. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent-State relied upon a Division Bench judgment in the case of Smt. Gajala Chaudhary v. State of U.P. and others, rendered in Writ Petition No. 9505 (M/B) of 2014, on 23.9.2014 to contend that the said Division Bench judgment clearly indicates the powers being available to the District Magistrate and as such the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner does not conform to the aforesaid legal proposition as laid down in the said judgment.

9. She also submits that even otherwise the present writ petition has become academic and as a matter of fact has become infructuous with the withdrawal of the impugned order dated 23.9.2015.

10. It is on this issue that we have to consider the rival submissions as to whether the District Magistrate possessed any such power for restraining the opening of tenders as has been attempted through the impugned communications dated 8.8.2015 and 10.8.2015 that have not been withdrawn by her.

11. The background in which the dispute arose appears to be the availability of a huge amount of funds for the Zila Panchayat from the State Finance Commission through the communication dated 27.2.2015. The Zila Panchayat had already passed resolution Nos. 4 and 5 on 27.12.2014 for utilization of the grants that were proposed to be made available to the Zila Panchayat for seventy eight projects. Part of the grant was utilized on being approved after following the due process of tender and award of contracts. For the other projects, the tenders and contracts are stated to have been approved by the Chairman where after an advertisement was published in tw