Judgment : SANJIB BANERJEE, J. (1) WP No. 1846 (W) of 2009 is the earlier petition and the petitioners seek leave to withdraw the same and proceed with the later petition on the ground that subsequent events have overtaken the earlier petition. WP No. 1846 (W) of 2009 is dismissed without any order as to costs and the petitioners are permitted to proceed with WP No. 2344 (W) of 2009. (2) CAN No. 1350 of 2009 is an application for the applicant to be impleaded in WP No. 2344 (W) of 2009. The applicant proposes to come on board to resist the reliefs claimed in the petition. The petitioner company was engaged by the West Bengal Power Development Corporation Limited (the corporation) for removal of fly ash from the Kolaghat Thermal Power Station of the corporation. The letter of intent of December 19, 2005 specified that the petitioner company was to remove 29,000 MT of fly ash per month with a provision for variation on either side to the extent of 25 per cent. The third clause of the letter of intent provided as follows: "3) Time of completion: Two (2) calendar year since 1.1.06 with provision for further extension for a period of one more year depending upon satisfactory performance by you within which time between 1.1.06 till execution of formal MOU at future course of time is to be considered as STABILISATION PERIOD to facilitate instant execution of work." (3) The petitioners say that the clause implied that the period of two years with an additional period of a further year would begin to run after the formal execution of a memorandum of understanding. The petitioners say that a draft memorandum was forwarded by the corporation to the petitioner company which was duly executed on behalf of the company and returned to the corporation, but the corporation has chosen to not complete the execution of the document. The petitioners say that in such view of the matter and since it is admitted that the memorandum of understanding has not yet been executed the petitioner companys tenure continues and there is no question of any new invitation being issued for fresh offers for another period. The petitioners say that in such view of the matter and since it is admitted that the memorandum of understanding has not yet been executed the petitioner companys tenure continues and there is no question of any new invitation being issued for fresh offers for another period. The petitioners assail the notice dated January 27, 2009 and say that the job description therein of "procuring of balance quantity of coal ash " would convey the impression that the offers being invited would be for fly ash beyond the monthly quantum of 29,000 MT reserved for the petitioner company. The petitioners say that if such is the case, they would have no grievance and on a clarification to such effect being offered by the corporation, the petitioners would not pursue these proceedings. The petitioners, however, say that the relevant clause is somewhat ambiguous and it is the petitioners apprehension that without the corporation clarifying that the petitioners monthly quantum was to be left untouched, there is room for the corporation to take steps to the detriment of the petitioner company. (4) The corporation says that a firm date was given to the petitioners and unless the corporation enlarges the time, the petitioners have no right to obtain the fly ash from the Kolaghat Thermal Plant for an indefinite period. The applicant seeking to be impleaded suggests that it is the favourable rate that the petitioner company has fortuitously obtained that entices the petitioners to try and cling on to the work and keep other prospective bidders like the applicant at bay. (5) The petitioners have referred to the certificates issued by the corporation personnel to the petitioners appearing at pages 53 and 106 of the petition to submit that there was no grievance as to the petitioners functioning. The petitioners say that the stray complaint which finds place in the corporations letter of November 26, 2008 has been dealt with in substance by the petitioners letter of December 2, 2008; and that, given the constraints, the petitioner company had performed remarkably to remove adequate quantities of fly ash every month. (6) It is not necessary to enter into the arena of satisfactory performance or otherwise by the petitioner company. The substance of the claim hinges on the meaning of the third clause in the letter of intent. (6) It is not necessary to enter into the arena of satisfactory performance or otherwise by the petitioner company. The substance of the claim hinges on the meaning of the third clause in the letter of intent. If such clause is seen to have given the petitioner a minimum time of two years after the execution of the memorandum of understanding, the petitioners would be right in their assertion that the tenure continues and the countdown to the minimum two-year period has not yet commenced. (7) In the papers that the petitioners have brought, there is a submission that is attributed to the petitioners in an order dated January 15, 2009. The applicant intending to be impleaded here had instituted WP No. 32060 (W) of 2008, apparently aggrieved by the corporation not inviting any fresh offers for the removal of fly ash from the Kolaghat Thermal Plant. On December 24, 2008 the corporation submitted that it proposed to issue a fresh tender notice in January, 2009 for the purpose. Upon such submission being recorded, no interim order was passed but the petition was kept pending. The present writ petitioners filed CAN No. 242 of 2009 seeking to be impleaded in WP No. 32060 (W) of 2008. On such application being taken up on January 15, 2009, a submission was made on behalf of the present writ petitioners to the following effect: "The applicants say that the applicants are entitled to continue the work till 2010 and submit that they are necessary parties. " (8) Since it is the undisputed position that the memorandum of understanding has not been executed yet, if the petitioners understanding was that the period of minimum of two years was to begin after the document was formalised such submission that the contract was to last till 2010 could not have been made. Again, and notwithstanding the complaint relating to the petitioner companys performance having been dealt with in its letter of December 2, 2008, the principal assertion in the corporations letter of November 26, 2008 remains unrebutted. Such letter extended the time under the letter of intent till February 28, 2009 and emphasised that upon expiry of such extended period, the arrangement would stand determined. Such letter extended the time under the letter of intent till February 28, 2009 and emphasised that upon expiry of such extended period, the arrangement would stand determined. If, indeed, it was the petitioners understanding that the period of two years was only to commence upon the execution of the memorandum of understanding, the petitioners ought to have dropped a line in protest following due receipt of the letter of November 26, 2008. (9) The relevant clause in the letter of intent is not happily worded but the vague words would have to be stretched a considerable distance for the clause to imply what the petitioners now seek to establish. There is no document dated prior to the institution of the present round of proceedings from which it would be evident that the parties shared the petitioners view on the relevant clause or that the petitioner company had expressed its understanding of the clause on the lines that the petitioners have canvassed now. It does not appear from the conduct of the petitioners following the receipt of the letter of November 26, 2008 that even a couple of months before coming to court the petitioners read the third clause in the letter of intent in the manner that they now wish it to be read. There is nothing arbitrary about the corporation inviting fresh offers for the removal of fly ash from the Kolaghat Thermal Plant. The corporation has also assured that the implication of the word "balance" appearing in its notice inviting tender dated January 27, 2009 would be apparent from the tender documents that have gone on sale today. (10) There is no merit in the petition. WP No. 2344 (W) of 2009 is dismissed without any order as to costs. CAN No. 1350 of 2009 stands disposed of without costs. (11) Urgent certified photostat copies of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.