Judgment 1. These two writ petitions arise from disputes in connection with the grant of a contract by the National Thermal Power Corporation, Kahalgaon to one Sri Niwas Dubey (respondent no. 3 in both the cases) for transporting the children and wards of the Corporations employees to and from the school situate in Bhagalpur, at some distance from the Corporations colony at Kahalgaon. 2. Heard Mr. Nawal Kishore Agrawal, Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the cases and Mr. Navin Sinha appearing for the Corporation. 3. It needs to be stated here that notice of these two cases could be served upon respondent no. 3 who was awarded the disputed contract with some difficulty. Notices sent to him from this court through usual modes remained unserved and finally those notices had to be published in daily newspapers, at considerable cost to the petitioners. It is evident that respondent no. 3 was aware of these cases because in one of the two cases (CWJC No. 1052 of 2001) a Vakalatnsma on his behalf was filed by one Mr. Basant Kumar Singh, Advocate. Respondent no. 3 did not choose to appear in the other case (CWJC No. 347 of 2001). However, at the time of hearing of these two cases, Mr. Basant Kumar Singh did not appear and thus, respondent no. 3 remained unrepresented in both the cases. 4. On hearing counsel for the parties, I find that the general notice inviting tenders for the award of the contract was not very happily framed and it was likely to cause some confusion as it seems to have done in this case. Clause 1.0 of the notice was worded to suggest that no one else but contractors who were both experienced and registered with organisations specified in that clause were eligible for making an offer. Clause 3. thereafter stipulated the qualifying requirements. As it happened, all the tenders were received from unregistered contractors and having regard to the urgency of the matter, the Corporation was forced to make selection from amongst the tenders in disregard of clause 1.0. 5. Mr. Navin Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation tried to justify the action of the Corporation by referring to clause 7.0. As it happened, all the tenders were received from unregistered contractors and having regard to the urgency of the matter, the Corporation was forced to make selection from amongst the tenders in disregard of clause 1.0. 5. Mr. Navin Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation tried to justify the action of the Corporation by referring to clause 7.0. To my mind the reliance is unsustainable; clause 7.0 permitted the authorities only to relax the qualifying requirements as contained in clause 3.1 and the authorities were not empowered to relax the condition of clause 1.0 in view of the notice, as it was framed. 6. The petitioner in CWJC No. 347 of 2001 not being a registered contractor did not submit any tender and he can, therefore, raise a legitimate grievance of being misled by clause 1.0. He can also assert that he got a cause of action only when he came to learn that the contract had gone to another person who, like him, was not a registered contractor. 7. This court might have considered the petitioners grievance but having regard to the nature and the duration of the contract, the court refrains from doing so in larger interest. The contract is due to expire on 31.12.2002. Any interference at this stage is bound to dislocate the transportation of the children to and from school and is likely to cause much inconvenience to small children and avoidable anxiety to their parents. 8. I, therefore, dispose of these two writ petitions with the direction that the present contract awarded to respondent no. 3 will remain subsisting till 31.12.2002 and the Corporation will make fresh contract for the period commencing from 1.2.2003. While issuing the notice for the next contract the Corporation will take care to clarify the condition as contained in clause 1.0 of the advertisement, dated 5.10.2000. The condition regarding the tenderers being experienced and registered would either be made a preferential condition or it would be clarified that in case none of the tenderers was a registered contractor, the Corporation might make the selection from amongst the unregistered contractors. 9. At this stage, Mr. Agrawal pointed out that though the contract awarded to respondent no. The condition regarding the tenderers being experienced and registered would either be made a preferential condition or it would be clarified that in case none of the tenderers was a registered contractor, the Corporation might make the selection from amongst the unregistered contractors. 9. At this stage, Mr. Agrawal pointed out that though the contract awarded to respondent no. 3 will come to an end on 31.12.2002, there was an option clause in that agreement which gave him the right to extend the contract on the existing terms and conditions for one year. In the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the fact that respondent no. 3 has chosen not to appear in these cases despite notice to him, this court directs that option clause will not be given effect to and the Corporation will enter into a fresh agreement for the period commencing from 1.1.2003. 10. These two writ petitions stand disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.