1. The petitioners were permitted extraction of Six thousand five hundred seventy one (6571) Age Old Willow Plants in beat Doslipora and Mundyari, of Circle Nowgam of Rakhs and Farms Wing of Agriculture Department, by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir Directorate of Agriculture, Srinagar. One of the terms and conditions of the Contract was that the work of extraction was to be completed before April 01,2010. 2. The petitioners started the extraction work but could extract only four thousand four hundred one (4401) trees and lift part thereof when, according to them, the extraction was abandoned because of early snow fall during winter of 2010 that raised water level in the area creating impediment in the completion of work. Meanwhile, the period of Contract expired. 3. The case of the petitioners is that the extraction work, though abandoned for some time because of the early heavy snowfall in 2010, was permitted to be continued by the Monitoring Committee and as such the respondents, by their conduct, had permitted extraction of the Contract till its completion and the work could not, therefore, be put to re-auction for fresh extraction. They say that in June 2010, Kashmir Valley was hit by law and order situation, created by Stone Pelters that disturbed public peace and tranquility and as such the work could not be completed by them from June 2010 to October, 2010. They, therefore, seek directions against the State-respondents to permit them to re-start the work on the terms and conditions of allotment order issued by the Director Agriculture vide his No. ADRF/Dev/2009/1109-11 dated 21.12.2009, urging that fresh auction notice issued by the respondents for extraction of trees was unwarranted in view of the provisions of Section 39 of the Contract Act. 4. The petitioners' Claim is contested by the State-respondents on various grounds, inter alia, submitting that the petitioners had not applied for any extension in the period of Contract and such request came for the first time only in June 2010 when the Contract had already expired and by that time, they had extracted only 4401 trees out of 6571 Age Old marked trees that they were permitted to lift. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the material on records and considered their submissions. 6. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the material on records and considered their submissions. 6. The petitioners have placed on records documents indicating recommendations made by the Extraction Committee, Nowgam to the Assistant Director, Rakhs and Farms to permit the petitioners to complete the extraction of remaining trees. 7. The extraction, however, does not appear to have been permitted by the Director Agriculture, who instead directed re-auctioning of the Compartment. 8. The question that arises for consideration is as to whether the provisions of Section 39 of the Contract Act were attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case and, if so, whether directions, sought for by the petitioners, were warranted against the State-respondents. 9. In terms of the provisions of Section 39 of the Contract Act when a party to a Contract has refused to perform, or disabled himself from performing, his promise in its entirety, the promisee may put an end to a Contract, unless he has signified by words or conduct, his acquiescence in its continuance. 10. Abare perusal of the above quoted provisions of the Section would indicate that the law permits continuance of a broken promise, only on promisee's acquiescence to its continuance. 11. The Section, however, does not contemplate continuance of a Contract which has otherwise lived its life. 12. The Contract for extraction of timber having admittedly expired on 31st March, 2010 and there being no acquiescence by the respondents for its continuance, before its expiry or even thereafter, the provisions of Section 39 would have no application to the facts of the present case. 13. This apart, the petitioners' plea that the Monitoring Committee had permitted them to extract timber, which plea, even otherwise is purely factual in character, that may not be adjudicated upon, in the absence of proof therefor, and which course may not be permissible in exercise of Extra Ordinary Writ Jurisdiction of the Court, cannot be considered as State Government's acquiescence in permitting the petitioners to extract timber. 14. 14. There is no sustainable material on records, on the basis whereof, it be said that even the Monitoring Committee had allowed extraction of timber by the petitioners during the currency of the Contract or thereafter, in that, the recommendations of the Monitoring Committee, relied upon by the petitioners are stated to have been made more than three months after the expiry of the period of Contract. 15. This apart, there being nothing on records to indicate any extension in the period of Contract or for that matter acquiescence by the State Government or the Director Agriculture, in permitting extraction, the petitioners' Claim for continuing with the extraction, despite expiry of the period allowed to them so to do, in terms of the Contract Agreement entered into by the parties, is found untenable. 16. The grant of permission to the petitioners by the Monitoring Committee to lift the material extracted before and after the expiry of the period of Contract, cannot be construed as State Government or Director Agriculture's acquiescence, as projected by the petitioners. 17. For all what has been said above, the petitioners' Writ Petition is found misconceived, hence dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 5000/-, lifting interim order dated 16.12.2010 whereby Auction Notice issued by respondent No. 4, was stayed.