R. C. Lahoti ( 1 ) THIS suit originates on a petition under Section 20 of thearbitration Act, 1940. According to the petitioner, in response to tender No. AGM (SP)MM-15/89 dated 23. 8. 1989 for trench, laying of cables and other connected jobs for Mahanagar Telehphone Nigam Limited, Delhi (hereinafter calledthe MTNL, for short), the petitioner submitted his tender. It was accepted by therespondent. The contract bearing the same number as the tender was executedbetween the parties on 1. 12. 89. The period of contract having expired, it wasextended from time to time upto 28. 2. 91,30. 4. 91 and 31. 5. 91. Thereafter there wasno extension upto 31. 7. 91. The petitioner executed the works under the workorders issued by the respondent upto 31. 7. 91. Consequent to the measurementmade of the works executed upto 31. 7. 91 the petitioner submitted his Bills to thetune of Rs. 18,85,535. 00 but the respondents made a huge deduction of Rs. 11,04,430. 00 in violation of the terms of the contract. The petitioner sought for thefollowing disputes to be referred to arbitration, in accordance with the arbitrationclause, (Clause No. 33 of the Contract dated 1. 12. 89) :- " (I) Dispute pertaining to non-payment of balance amount of submittedbills for the work executed upto 31. 7. 1991 in Contract No. AGM (SP)-MM-15/89 dated 1. 12. 1989 total amounting to Rs. 11,04,430. 00 thedetails of which more particularly mentioned in annexure a ; (ii) Dispute pertaining to interest on the above said amount to Rs. 11,04,430. 00@ 24% per annum from the date of submissions of respective bills to tillrealisation; (iii) Dispute pertaining to damages suffered due to wrongful withholdingof above said bills. The petitioner claims Rs. 5,00,000. 00 (Rupees fivelakhs) as damages suffered for wrongful act and omission of therespondent. ( 2 ) THE arbitration clause i. e. Clause No. 33 provides for any question disputeor differences arising out of the contract or in connection therewith to be referredto an Arbitrator appointed by the Chief General Manager of MTNL. ( 3 ) IN the reply filed by the respondent the factum of Contract dated 1. 12. 89having been entered into between the parties is not disputed. However, it is statedthat the period of the petitioner s contract was extended only upto 30. 4. 91 whereafter there was no extension. ( 3 ) IN the reply filed by the respondent the factum of Contract dated 1. 12. 89having been entered into between the parties is not disputed. However, it is statedthat the period of the petitioner s contract was extended only upto 30. 4. 91 whereafter there was no extension. Fresh offers were invited for contract thereafter andthe petitioner had submitted a fresh offer on 1. 4. 91 the rates quoted wherein werefar below the rates quoted in the contract dated 1. 12. 89. Fresh contract could beexecuted on 2. 8. 91. Whatever work the petitioner did in between i. e. after 1. 5. 1991and upto 31. 7. 91, that was done on work orders placed but not under the contractdated 1. 12. 89. It is submitted that the contract dated 1. 12. 89 stood terminated w. e. f. 30. 4. 91 and hence the disputes raised by the petitioner are not referable toarbitration by reference to the contract dated 1. 12. 89. It is further submitted that therates quoted by the petitioner in his offer dated 1. 4. 91 were far below the ratesquoted under the previous contract and the idea of the petitioner in submitting thedisputed bills and in filing the present petition is to take advantage of the higherrates in the contract dated 1. 12. 1989 contrary to the offer dated 1. 4. 91. In any case,it is submitted that, the disputes do not arise out of the contract dated 1. 12. 89 andcannot be referred to arbitration under Clause 33 thereof. ( 4 ) THE petitioner has come out with a replication. It is pointed out by him thatall the work orders placed by the respondents and annexed with the replication asannexures 1 to 53 were referable to the contract dated 1. 12. 89. The new contractwas executed on 2. 8. 91. It is filed as Annexure VI. The petitioner submits that thework orders having been placed by reference to the contract dated 1. 12. 89 he wasentitled to claim bills at the rates mentioned in the contract dated 1. 12. 89. Thepetitioner s claim could not be considered under the offer dated 1. 4. 91 which cameinto existence only on 2. 8. 91 on the contract having been entered into between theparties. ( 5 ) A perusal of the contract dated 2. 8. 12. 89 he wasentitled to claim bills at the rates mentioned in the contract dated 1. 12. 89. Thepetitioner s claim could not be considered under the offer dated 1. 4. 91 which cameinto existence only on 2. 8. 91 on the contract having been entered into between theparties. ( 5 ) A perusal of the contract dated 2. 8. 91 (Annexure VI with replication)demonstrates that this contract was for a period of one year commencing with2. 8. 91. Though the contract records to have come into existence in response to thepetitioners tender dated 1. 4. 91, it does not state to have become effective w. e. f. 1. 4. 91. ( 6 ) THE pleadings show that for the period 1. 5. 91 to 2. 8. 91 there was no contractbetween the parties, still work orders were placed by the respondents and theworks were executed by the petitioner. The source of dispute is the submission of, offer dated 1,4. 91 by the petitioner. The petitioner might have been under anapprehension that so long as a fresh contract pursuant to the offer dated 1. 4. 91 wasnot executed between the parties, the rates quoted in the offer dated 1. 4. 91 wouldnot bind the petitioner and he would have the advantage of the rates referable tothe contract dated 1. 12. 89. He submitted his bills on that basis. The respondentapplied the rates quoted in the offer dated 1. 4. 91 and reduced the amount claimedin the bills put up by the petitioner. ( 7 ) IT is not necessary to express any opinion on the maintainability orotherwise of the stand taken by the petitioner or by the respondent on the rateswhich would be legally and justly applicable to the works done by the petitioner forthe period between 1. 5. 91 to 1. 8. 91. For the purpose of this suit what is relevant isonly to note the contract of the petitioner having expired w. e. f. 30/04/1991. The stand taken by the respondent in its reply is very specific that the contract hadexpired on 30. 4. 91 whereafter it was not extended. There is no material availableon record to hold the period of contract having been extended after 30. 4. 91. Clause7 of the contract dated 1. 12. 89 provides the period of operation as one year. The stand taken by the respondent in its reply is very specific that the contract hadexpired on 30. 4. 91 whereafter it was not extended. There is no material availableon record to hold the period of contract having been extended after 30. 4. 91. Clause7 of the contract dated 1. 12. 89 provides the period of operation as one year. Thechief General Manager (Telephones) has been vested with discretion to extend theperiod of contract. There is no communication by the CGM (Telephones) broughton record showing extension of contract for any period after 30. 4. 1991. That beingthe factual position, the petition seeking appointment of Arbitrator for adjudication of disputes arising for the period between 1. 5. 91 and 1. 8. 91 by reference to thearbitration clause contained in the Contract dated 1. 12. 89 which seized to existw. e. f. 30. 4. 91 is not maintainable. ( 8 ) THE petition is dismissed, though without any order as to costs in the factsand circumstances of the case. Petition dismissed.