Judgment N.K. Jain, J.-By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to quash Anx. 8 whereby tenders have been invited. It has been prayed that the Respondent No. 1 may be restrained from cancelling the contract given in favour of the petitioner for a period of two years for Deshnoke and Nokha godowns. The petitioner further prays that this Court may hold that the Respondent No. 1 is not entitled to give contracts in question to any other party. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case as alleged by the petitioner who is engaged in the business of doing contract job as Handling and Transportation Agent. It is alleged that the petitioner gave his tender in pursuance of notice inviting tenders (Anx. 1) for items Nos. 2 and 13 A.R.D.C. & Camp Deshnok and A.R.D.C. Camp Nokha respectively, which was accepted vide Anx. 2. The contracts are to expire on 1-2-1996 and 29-6-1996 respectively, It is also alleged that to its surprise vide Anx. 8 a fresh notice inviting tender has been issued for four items including the items cf Camp Deshnok and Nokha. The petitioner has challenged the action of the non-petitioners inviting fresh tenders by way of this writ petition. 3. This writ petition has been filed on 2-1-1995. Notice to show cause has been issued on 3-1-1995 and the matter was placed on 17-1-1995. In the meantime, it was ordered that the respondents may accept the tender but will not finalise the same till 19-1-1995. Reply to show cause notice has been filed on 13-1-1995, along with, application under Article 226(3). 4. Mr. Kothari, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the non-petitioners have no jurisdiction to invite fresh tenders without hearing the petitioner, which is mala fide and just to help a third party, therefore, this Court is within its jurisdiction to set aside the same. He has relied on M/s. Bharat Construction Co. vs. State of Rajasthan, WLR 1993 Raj 765. 5. On the other hand learned Counsel for the non-petitioners has submitted that the nun-petitioners have jurisdiction to issue Anx. 8. He has also submitted that this writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the petitioner’s conduct alone as it has deliberately suppressed his unsatisfactory working and produced a certificate obtained from a person who is not authorised or competent and, therefore, the same is of no avail. 6. 8. He has also submitted that this writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the petitioner’s conduct alone as it has deliberately suppressed his unsatisfactory working and produced a certificate obtained from a person who is not authorised or competent and, therefore, the same is of no avail. 6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record as well as the decision cited. 7. Sofar as the contention that the respondents have no jurisdiction to issue Anx. 8 is concerned, suffice it to say that in the terms of the contract there is Clause XIV, which clearly provides that the Corporation do not guarantee any definite volume of work or any particular pattern of service at any time or throughout the period of contract. It has also been provided that mere mention of any item of work does not by itself conferral right on the contractor to demand the work relating to all or any item thereof should necessarily or exclusively be entrusted to them and further a very specific right has been reserved with the Corporation to appoint one or more contractors at any time whether at the time of award of the contract or even during the tenure of the contract for all or any of the services mentioned in the contract. The right of division of work between such contractors has also been reserved by the Corporation and no claim is to lie against the Corporation by reason of such division of work. Therefore, when there is specific term in the contract itself which has not been disputed, the petitioner cannot challenge the action of the respondents being without jurisdiction in inviting new tenders. 8. Sofar as the ground of malice is concerned, no specific averment has been made except mentioning unhappiness of Respondent No. 1 and some more reasons, without disclosing which are no reasons to establish ground of malice as the respondents are within their competence to issue fresh notice. The contention of Mr. Kothari that the Anx. 8 has been issued just to give benefit to one Bansal Arora and Company, Sikar is not sustainable as he has not disputed that the impugned Anx. 8 has been issued adopting the same process as was adopted at the time of publication of earlier notification Anx. 1, so no relief can be granted on this count also. 8 has been issued just to give benefit to one Bansal Arora and Company, Sikar is not sustainable as he has not disputed that the impugned Anx. 8 has been issued adopting the same process as was adopted at the time of publication of earlier notification Anx. 1, so no relief can be granted on this count also. Though the petitioner has come out with a case that his work was satisfactory as per Anx. 7 issued by the Assistant Manager, F.C.I., Nokha and he also gave suggestions for the purpose of improvement and efficient working. Whereas the respondents’ case is that the suggestions given by the petitioner are not mere suggestions but a clear threat that in case its suggestions are not accepted the petitioner, will not be in a position to do the work and actually he has not performed his work which has caused losses and hampered the work of the respondent Corporation and due to the petitioner loading and unloading of the goods in the trains could not be done. The certificate Anx. 7 is also of no avail as the same has been issued by unauthorised/ incompetent person. Be that as it may be, 1 am not satisfied: with the contention of the petitioner’s Counsel that the respondent Corporation has invited fresh tenders with mala fide and issuance of notice to the petitioner was necessary. Therefore, the decision cited by the Mr. Kothari is of no help. 9. In view of what I have discussed above, it cannot be said that inviting of fresh tenders vide Anx. 8 is without jurisdiction or mala fide or the same has been issued without applying mind, so as to call for any interference in the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. The ad interim order dated 3-1-1995 stands discharged. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition has no force and same is hereby dismissed.