1. The petitioner-Nisar Ahmad Bhat was awarded Contract of Ticket Entry System for Green Park, Harwan in the year 2009 for a period of one year on the Bid amount of Rs. 13,31,000/-. 2. Keeping in view the disturbed law and order situation in Kashmir valley, a decision was taken by the State Cabinet to extend the existing contracts of Ticket Entry System for another financial year, i.e., 2011-12 upon payment of 30% of the previous Bid amount and subject to the condition that the contractors would clear the remaining balance of the existing Bid amount in full during the current financial year. The petitioner too was allowed the benefit of the Cabinet decision and his Contract was, accordingly, extended upto March, 31,2012. 3. It was in May, 2011 that the petitioner complained to the Assistant Floriculture Officer, Green Park, Harwan that because of the Economic Reconstruction Agency's activities in the area in laying water pipes, the retaining wall of the Garden had given way from its irrigation side creating space for unauthorized entry of public into the Garden resulting in financial loss to him. It is on the above premise that the petitioner approached this Court by this Writ Petition seeking extension of his Contract on the lines the Cabinet had allowed extension of such contracts in the preceding year. It is pleaded by the petitioner that the Tender Notice floated by the Directorate of Floriculture, Emporium Garden, Srinagar, Kashmir was unwarranted, in that, the Garden could not be auctioned afresh for inviting contractors for award of Contract regarding privatization of Ticket Entry System for Green Park, Harwan, before the expiry of the petitioner's contract and until his claim for damages against the Department was considered for its settlement. 4. The State-respondents contest the petitioner's Claim urging that having already been benefited by the renewal of his contract for an year with effect from 01-04-2011 at the Bid amount of Rs. 3,99,300/-, which was 30% of the previous year's Bid amount, in terms of the Cabinet decision, the petitioner was not entitled to any further extension additionally because of his having violated the terms and conditions of the earlier Contract. Condition Nos.05 and 20 of the Contract Agreement between the parties are relied upon to urge that the State-respondents were not responsible for any monetary loss alleged to have been suffered by the petitioner -Contractor. 5. Condition Nos.05 and 20 of the Contract Agreement between the parties are relied upon to urge that the State-respondents were not responsible for any monetary loss alleged to have been suffered by the petitioner -Contractor. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their submissions. 6. Before approaching the Court, the petitioner does not appear to have sought State Government's consideration for extension of his Contract, in that, all that appears from the documents placed on records indicate his request for compensating him for the loss suffered by him because of unauthorized entry of general public into the Garden. 7. Thus, having not approached the State-respondents to seek consideration for extension of Contract, the petitioner's Claim as projected in the Writ petition for extension of contract, on the lines of the Cabinet decision of 2011-12, cannot be entertained by the Court, in that, the Claim of the petitioner-Contractor, if otherwise permissible, would need consideration for its grant or otherwise only by the State Government had the contractor approached it in this behalf. 8. This apart, the claim, based on disputed facts, cannot be examined by the Court in exercise of its Extra Ordinary Writ Jurisdiction. 9. Even otherwise, the petitioner's Claim for extension of Contract does not appear covered by the Cabinet decision, whereby the State Government had permitted extension of existing contracts of Entry Ticketing System for one year and that too because of the peculiar law and order situation in the Alley that remained hit by stone pelting incidents for a considerable period. The Cabinet decision, that permitted extension of existing such type of contracts only for a period of one year, may not, therefore, have any application to the petitioner's case for extension of Contract, particularly, when the loss is not stated to have been caused because of any law and order problem. 10. The petitioner's extended Contract had to expire on March, 31, 2012 and the State Government was not, therefore, in any way debarred to float tenders for inviting fresh Bids for award of Contract for the period which had to commence from April 01,2012 i.e. after the expiry of the period of petitioner's Contract. 11. 10. The petitioner's extended Contract had to expire on March, 31, 2012 and the State Government was not, therefore, in any way debarred to float tenders for inviting fresh Bids for award of Contract for the period which had to commence from April 01,2012 i.e. after the expiry of the period of petitioner's Contract. 11. The action of the State Government to issue NIT for privatization of the Entry Ticketing System for the park in question for the period commencing from April 01,2012 to March 31,2013, cannot, therefore, be questioned by the petitioner and that too on the plea that the Government was required to compensate him for the loss alleged to have been suffered by him. 12. The petitioner does not, therefore, have any enforceable right to question Tender Notice No. 28 of 1011-12 of the Directorate of Floriculture, Emporium Garden, Srinagar- Kashmir. 13. The petitioner's Claim in Writ petition seeking quashing of the tender and extension of his Contract, for all what has been said above, is not found bonafide and appears designed to continue his stay as Contractor beyond the period for which he was permitted so to do. His motion, therefore, needs to be rejected with costs for dragging the respondents into unnecessary litigation and depriving them of the revenue they would have otherwise generated by operating their Tender Notice. 14. This Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed with costs of Rs. 20,000/-lifting interim order dated March 02,2012.