Judgment This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not extending the period of contract pertaining to the lease of parcel van in Train No.12707/12708-A.P. Sampark Kranthi Express from Secunderabad to Hazrath Nizamuddin, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner entered into an agreement with the respondents on 6-10-2009 under which a parcel van was leased out to it in the above mentioned Train. The contract was for a period of three years, which expired on 5-10-2012. On the eve of expiry of the contract period, the petitioner applied to the respondents for extension of the lease by two more years on enhanced lease amount of 25% over and above the existing lease amount. The said request was rejected by respondent No.4 vide order dated 8-9-2012. In support of the order of rejection, respondent No.4 has given two reasons, namely, that the petitioner has suffered penalty for overloading 3.06 Tons on 22-10-2010, for which a penalty of Rs.85,662/-was levied on and paid by the latter, and that therefore in terms of Freight Marketing Circular No.16 of 2012, extension is not permissible. Questioning the said rejection order, the petitioner filed W.P.No.31248 of 2012. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by order dated 8-10-2012 wherein this Court, while opining that under Clause No.20.1 of the agreement, the petitioner cannot seek extension of lease as a matter of right as the same is subject to the satisfactory performance by the leaseholder, however, directed the respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 17-9-2012 and pass appropriate orders on or before 18-10-2012 in the light of the policy that is applicable to the petitioner. Accordingly, respondent No.4 passed fresh order dated 17-10-2012 wherein it is stated that the petitioner was involved in overloading of the parcel van of Train No.12708-A.P. Sampark Kranti Express on 15-6-2011, for which a penalty of Rs.37,864/-was imposed and that the petitioner has paid only 50% of the same and that the balance amount of Rs.18,932/-is still due to the Railway Administration. Respondent No.4 has quoted Clause No.20.1 of the agreement and stated that in view of the unsatisfactory performance of the existing contract of lease, the request of the petitioner is declined. Respondent No.4 has quoted Clause No.20.1 of the agreement and stated that in view of the unsatisfactory performance of the existing contract of lease, the request of the petitioner is declined. At the hearing, Sri K. Venumadhav, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that there is variation in the stand taken by respondent No.4 inasmuch as in the rejection order dated 8-9-2012, overloading of the parcel van of a different Train was referred to and that after the disposal of the previous Writ Petition by this Court, he has changed his stand and invented a new ground, namely, that the petitioner has overloaded the parcel van of the Train in respect of which the latter had lease. He further submitted that the entire action of respondent No.4 constitutes malafide exercise of power as he wanted to somehow deny the extension of contract to the petitioner. Ms. R. Kameswari, learned counsel representing respondent No.4, opposed the above submissions. Clause 20.1 of the lease agreement reads as under: “Extension of lease is permissible only in case of long term lease of 3 years wherein the same can be extended only once, by 2 more years at a lease rate of 25% more than the lumpsum leased freight rate subject to satisfactory performance by the leaseholder, without any penalty for overloading or violation of any provision of the contract.” As held in W.P.No.31248/2012, there is no absolute right vested in the petitioner for extension of the contract. Its right for such extension is only subject to the satisfactory performance of the previous contract. No doubt, there is variation in the stand taken by respondent No.4, in the sense that he has earlier referred to the imposition of penalty with respect to a parcel van which is not covered by this contract. However, in the subsequent order which is impugned in this Writ Petition, respondent No.4 has referred to another incident of the imposition of penalty on the petitioner, which admittedly related to the present contract. Even though the petitioner has termed the same as illegal, the fact remains that so far it has not questioned the same. The petitioner has paid 50% of the penalty charges so far. Even though the petitioner has termed the same as illegal, the fact remains that so far it has not questioned the same. The petitioner has paid 50% of the penalty charges so far. In the light of these facts, I am of the opinion that the rejection of extension of contract on the ground of unsatisfactory performance by the petitioner cannot be said to be either illegal or arbitrary. Furthermore, in the counter-affidavit it is mentioned that in pursuance of the fresh tender notice, higher offer of Rs.7,173 + 2% development charges per Ton, were received as against the freight amount of Rs.4,794/-per Ton, originally offered by the petitioner, and that even if the same is enhanced by 25%, the petitioner’s offer would be only Rs.5,993/-per Ton. By awarding the contract to the higher offerer, the Railways will earn more revenue than what the petitioner has offered. For the above mentioned reasons, I do not find any merit in the Writ Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel, WPMP No.42686 of 2012 is disposed of as infructuous.