- (1.) DEFENCE Estate Officer, Agra Circle, Agra Cantonment is stated to have published an advertisement qua auction for settling the right to collect the parking fee in respect of the parking space available in front of Amar Singh Gate, Agra Fort on 15th June, 2007. The petitioner along with other prospective bidder participated in the said auction, which took place on 4.7.2007. The bid offered by the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 17,55,000/- was accepted being the highest offer made. The possession of the parking plot is stated to have been given to the petitioner in terms of the aforesaid offer on 11.3.2008 with a right to collect the parking fee for a period of one year i.e. up to 10.3.2009. A written agreement was executed between the parties on 28.3.2008. The petitioner in terms of Clause 6 of the agreement is stated to have exercised an option for extension of the period of contract by one year with an enhanced offer of 10%. The application so made by the petitioner is dated 3.12.2008.
(2.) THE respondent authorities, however, published an advertisement in newspaper Amar Ujala on 27.12.2008, whereby fresh auction notice was published in respect of the collection of the parking fee qua aforesaid area for the period commencing from 11.3.2009. THE petitioner filed an application against the said advertisement claiming consideration of his application for extension of the time by one year in terms of his contract dated 28.3.2008 (Clause 6). Petitioner has been served with a letter dated 30th December, 2008 informing him that his application has been rejected by the competent authority. It is at this stage of the proceedings that the petitioner approached this Court by means of the present writ petition for quashing of the auction notice as well as for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to grant extension of the term of contract in favour of the petitioner qua the right to collect the parking fee for a period of one year in light of the option exercised by the petitioner on 3.12.2008, ignoring the letter dated 30.12.2008. Counsel for the petitioner with reference to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India and others, (1979) 3 SCC 489 submitted that the order, as communicated on 30.12.2008 rejecting the application of the petitioner for extension of the term of the contract, contains absolutely no reason and therefore such an order cannot be permitted to stand. Even otherwise it is submitted that the respondent authorities are under legal obligation to act in accordance with Clause 6 of the agreement entered into between the parties and to grant extension of the term of the right to collect the parking fee, inasmuch as petitioner had not committed any default in payment of bid amount nor he has otherwise breached any terms and conditions of the contract. Therefore, there is little or no justification for rejecting the extension prayed for, more so, when such a practice has been followed in all previous years.
(3.) THE contentions so raised on behalf of the petitioner are opposed by the counsel for the respondent namely Sri Upendra Singh. He submits that from Clause 6 of the agreement it is apparently clear that no right is conferred upon the petitioner to seek extension of the term of the contract. It only confers a discretion upon the authorities to grant contract for the ensuing year on an enhanced offer, if made by the existing contractor. He submits that the decision of the authorities in refusing to grant extension of contract is a legal and valid decision and the reason being that the authorities have taken a decision to resettle the contract for ensuing year by way of auction. He, therefore, submits that no interference is warranted in the facts of the case. We have considered the submission made by the parties and have gone through the records of the writ petition.;