M. KATJU, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed for a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned advertisement dated 14-4- 2003 Annexure 8 to the writ petition and for a mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with the petitioners exhibiting its hoardings within the Nagar Nigam limits of Ghaziabad. 3. The petitioner is a partnership firm and is engaged in the business of outdoor advertisement including exhibition of hoardings on the roadsides and other places within the limits of Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad. An advertisement was published in times of India dated 5-9-1997 for grant of a contract for five years for fixing hoardings within the limits of Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad. True copy of the same is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. In paragraph 5 of the writ petition it is alleged that the petitioners bid was found to be highest and he was given the contract for Rs. 1. 70 crores for a period of five years. True copy of the agreement between the petitioner and the respondent No. 1 dated 7-4-1998 is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The period of the said contract is expiring on 31-5-2003. 4. It is alleged in paragraphs 6 to 9 of the writ petition that although under the aforesaid agreement the entire site was to be handed over to the petitioner by 31-5-1998 the entire site was not handed over. Hence the petitioner filed writ petition No. 17898 of 1998 in which an interim order was passed on 21-5- 1998 vide Annexure 3 to the writ petition. The petition was, therefore, disposed off in terms of the aforesaid interim order vide Annexure 4 to the writ petition. By the aforesaid order the respondents were directed not to interfere with the petitioners erection and exhibition of hoardings on the basis of the agreement dated 7-4-1998. 5. In paragraph 11 of the writ petition it is alleged that the petitioner was not granted clear sites as mentioned in the agreement dated 7-4-1998 and hence he made various representations and also legal notice dated 17-2-2003 to the respondents vide Annexure 5 to the writ petition. The petitioner also filed writ petition No. 50759 of 2002 in which an interim order was passed vide Annexure 7 to the writ petition. 6. The petitioner also filed writ petition No. 50759 of 2002 in which an interim order was passed vide Annexure 7 to the writ petition. 6. It is alleged in paragraph 15 to the writ petition that the petitioner has suffered a huge loss as it was not given clear sites by 31-5-1998 and as such the contract could not commence from 1-6-1998. Now a fresh advertisement has been issued and published in the Hindi daily dainik Jagaran on 14-4-2003 for grant of a fresh contract vide Annexure 8 to the writ petition. 7. A counter-affidavit has been filed and we have perused the same. It has been stated in paragraph 5 of the same that the petitioners contract is going to expire on 31-5-2003 and he can participate in the fresh auction. In paragraph 6 of the counter- affidavit it is stated that the possession of the entire site as per the contract was handed over to the petitioner by 31-5-1998. The same allegation has been reiterated in paragraph 7 in which it is stated that for the full five years the petitioner used the entire site mentioned in the contract for exhibiting the hoardings. We have also perused the rejoinder affidavit. 8. The petitioner has alleged that he was not given the entire site but this has been denied by the respondents, who have stated that possession of the entire site was given to the petitioner by 31-5- 1998 and he operated the contract for the full five years. This Court cannot go into this factual controversy under Article 226 of the Constitution. At any event, if the petitioner is so advised he can file a suit for damages but this Court cannot extend the period of contract which is expiring on 31-5-2003. If the petitioner is so inclined he may participate in the fresh auction, if eligible. Petition dismissed. .