JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner was granted contract for collecting toll tax as he was highest bidder for Rs. 35,25,000/- for the period commencing from 1.8.91 to 31.7.92. However, after securing the contract the petitioner, has raised disputes about his liability to pay monthly installments payable under the contract against the bid inter alia on the ground that the requisite facilities which were stated to be already existing were not provided. More particularly, it was stated by the petitioner that no Pakka construction was made and no barrier was provided. He has further stated that he has paid Rs. 06,16,815/- as first instalment/advance money and Rs. 3,52,500/- as security money. He has also stated that he has paid Rs. 2,64,375/- as first instalment. However, thereafter when demand was raised for payment of instalment in the month of September he has challenged his liability to pay the payment and filed this writ petition. 3. Apparently, the filing of writ petition within the span of two months after securing the contract on the alleged breach of condition does not appear to be well founded. So far as non supply of barrier is concerned, it has been stated by the respondents in their reply categorically that the time bid was made, no one but two barriers had already been proved on the site. One of which was directed to be removed as it was apprehended that on account of its non use it is likely to promote accidents. This was informed to the petitioner in response to letter dated 6.9.91 made by the petitioner. 4. Moreover, when the petitioner has made bid, he was aware about whatever facilities were available on the site. Therefore, neither it can be said that he was mislead by any assertions while making bid nor it can be said that the bid was under any compulsion. He has voluntarily made a bid for securing contract of collecting toll tax for the period in question, fully awaring with the existing facilities at the site. Thereafter, he cannot be permitted to be resile from the said contract by complaining about the non availability of requisite facilities merely by making a note on the agreement that the requisite facilities are lacking on the site. Thereafter, he cannot be permitted to be resile from the said contract by complaining about the non availability of requisite facilities merely by making a note on the agreement that the requisite facilities are lacking on the site. It does not detract from the fact that the petitioner has made a bid inspite of non availability of such facilities on site to secure contract voluntarily. 5. In the aforesaid circumstances, when the petitioner has voluntarily made a bid fully aware of the existing conditions which was accepted and a concluded contract came into being. Thereafter no interference in exercise of extra jurisdiction power can be made. If the petitioner is aggrieved of breach of any condition of contract, he could pursue the remedy for claiming damages for breach of contract if any, a fact which is seriously disputed. 6. In view of the aforesaid, the petition fails and dismissed. Interim order is vacated. No order as to cost. 7. Petitioner wants two months' time to make payment of the amount due under the contract to the respondents. Time prayer for is granted.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******