JUDGMENT R.K. Merathia, & Prashant Kumar, JJ. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the order dated 14.7.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 3726 of 2005, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. 2. The said writ petition was filed by the appellant for a direction on the respondents to charge license fee @ Rs. 1/-per L.P. litre in respect of country liquor for the extended period upto 30.6.2005 and/or adjust the excess amount of license fee paid during the extended period. 3. It appears that the appellant was granted contract for the wholesale supply of country liquor in Dhanbad Zone and Bokaro district in terms of Clause 2 (Kha) of the tender notice (Annexure 1) under which the appellant was required to pay license fee @ Rs. 1/-per L.P. litre. The contract expired on 31.3.2005. As some time was required for giving a fresh grant, the period of contract of the appellant was extended for two months by letter dated 29.3.2005 (Annexure 2), under which for such extended period, the appellant was required to pay @ Rs. 2/-L.P. litre as license fee. The appellant accepted the said condition of the tender notice and continued his business upto the extended period. After expiry of the said period in June, 2005, a further extension was given on the aforesaid condition upto 15.7.2005. The appellant did not raise any objection to the first extension and continued his business for the period upto the expiry of second extension. On expiry of first extension period, the appellant filed the writ petition in question challenging enhancement of license fee @ Rs. 2/-per L.P. litre for the extended period. 4. The learned Single Judge in the order dated 14.7.2005 held as follows: “ Admittedly, like renewal, extension is a fresh grant and in the renewal or extension, the respondents can put any fresh condition that may be decided by the Board of Revenue. Besides that it is well known that after accepting the condition of contract which may be by way of extension, by way of renewal or by way of fresh grant, the party to that effect cannot be allowed to challenge the condition. In my opinion, therefore, the claim of the petitioner cannot be sustained in law. This writ petition is dismissed.” 5. Mr. In my opinion, therefore, the claim of the petitioner cannot be sustained in law. This writ petition is dismissed.” 5. Mr. Abhishek Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that the appellant accepted the said condition under protest but he could not show any averment in the writ petition to this effect. Referring to paragraph 25 of this appeal, he submitted that the said amount of license fee @ Rs. 2/-per L.P. litre was paid in compulsion. 6. Firstly the appellant tried to change his case made out in the writ petition, in this Letters Patent Appeal by making such averment. Moreover such averment is absolutely vague, general and without any document in support thereof. Clearly the appellant acquiesced with the terms of contract for the extended period. 7. Mr. Sumir Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the State of Jharkhand rightly pointed out that the appellant did not challenge the enhancement of fee in the writ petition. 8. After hearing the parties and considering the materials on record, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. 9. In the result, this Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. However, no costs.