JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. In these two writ petitions since common question of law and facts are involved the same have been heard together and disposed of by this common order. 3. In W.P.C. No. 2961 of 2004, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order as contained in the letter No. 669 dated 4.6.2004 issued by the Deputy Development Commissioner, Jamshedpur, whereby he has cancelled the contract for transportation of foodgrains and invited open tenders for the purpose of transportation of foodgrains for the remaining period of the contract. 4. In W.P.C. No. 5465 of 2004, the petitioners have sought for a direction upon the respondents to complete the process of. allotting contract for the transportation of foodgrains. 5. The facts which are not in dispute are that in the year 2001-02 a tender was invited by the respondents for transportation of food grains for the District Rural Development Agency. Many persons submitted their tenders and finally the contract was allotted to the petitioner of W.P.C. No. 2961 of 2004 for transportation of food grains for the period January, 2002 to March, 2003. Instead of inviting fresh tender for the period April, 2003 to March, 2004 the respondents extended the contract of the petitioner for another one year. Other tenderers raised objection and filed representation before %the Deputy Development Commissioner. Most surprisingly, the contract of the petitioner was again extended for the period upto March, 2005. The tenderers immediately represented before the Deputy Commissioner, and the M.L.A. of the locality. The Dy. Commissioner, Jamshedpur then examined the entire matter and decided to invite short-term tender for the transportation of foodgrains for the remaining period of contract. 6. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that once the contract was entered into with the petitioner the same could not have been cancelled and fresh tender notice could not have been issued. However, learned counsel could not be able to justify the reason for extension of contract for subsequent years without inviting fresh tender notice. It appears that pursuant to the tender notice the petitioner whose contract has been cancelled also submitted tender along with other tenderers who are the petitioners of W.P. (C) No. 5465 of 2004. 7. However, learned counsel could not be able to justify the reason for extension of contract for subsequent years without inviting fresh tender notice. It appears that pursuant to the tender notice the petitioner whose contract has been cancelled also submitted tender along with other tenderers who are the petitioners of W.P. (C) No. 5465 of 2004. 7. Having regard to the admitted facts discussed hereinabove and considering the fact that the extension of contract for subsequent years was illegal and also in view of the fact that the petitioner also submitted tender it is desirable that the respondents should finalise the tender for the remaining period and issue the work order to the successful tenderer. The process of finalization of tender and issuance of work order shall be completed by the respondents as expeditiously as possible preferable by 30th November, 2004. 8. These two writ petitions are, therefore, disposed of with the aforesaid.