ORDER : This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of rejection insofar as the extension sought for by the petitioner as lease period is expiring on 31.03.2016. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that the order is per se illegal as he stated that there are no arrears in respect of previous years. Whereas, as per the condition of the auction, the amount has been paid in advance for the respective years. According to him, for all the respective years, they have paid the entire amount and there was no amount due. They have also produced the receipts issued by the Municipality for the payment of the amount. Further, he contended that in the order itself, they sought service tax as well as income tax, both are payable and there is no clause in the agreement. Therefore, they contended that the entire order is illegal. 3. Furthermore, at this juncture, they also pointed out that though the period is coming to a close on 31.03.2016, the application for extension has not been considered till date. Apart from that, due to election, the auction could not be conducted in time. In this connection, apart from seeking to set aside the impugned rejection order, the petitioner is willing to continue upto 31.06.2016 as the authority will commence auction only after 31.03.2016. Therefore, the petitioner will also pay 40% of the enhanced payment for the upcoming year towards the proportionate amount in advance and the petitioner also undertakes to pay the amount towards arrears or tax, legally payable by him. He will also hand over the vacant possession without any notice, namely, 30.06.2016 and he will not claim any right under this order. He further submitted that for the period of three months, i.e. from 01.04.2016 to 31.06.2016, to show his bona fide, the petitioner has already paid a sum of Rs.13,33,805/- as advance. 4. The learned Government Advocate submitted that the period is expires on 31.03.2016 and the respondents are taking steps for auction, but, due to Election Code of conduct, it will take sometime for conducting the auction and that will not amount to giving a right as if right for extension. But, only for the short period, it might be considered. As far as the order is concerned, there was a mistake insofar as the arrears are concerned. 5. But, only for the short period, it might be considered. As far as the order is concerned, there was a mistake insofar as the arrears are concerned. 5. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 6. In view of the peculiar circumstances of the case, the order states that there are arrears payable by the petitioner. Whereas he produced the accounts to the effect that he paid the amounts already and even there is a clause to collect the amount immediately prior to the contract. In fact, the income tax payable by him was already paid. As far as the service tax is concerned, according to him, he is exempted from paying the service tax in view of a Government Order. 7. Be that as it may, one thing is clear that the petitioner seeks for extension of time but the same was rejected by the respondents. The difficulty is that they cannot call for public auction for the time being. Till the auction is conducted, somebody has to continue. But the petitioner, to show his bona fide is willing to pay 40% more than the erstwhile last price namely in the year 2015-2016, i.e. Rs.46,39,308/-. 8. In view of the same, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. As per the undertaking, the authority is at liberty to collect, if there are any arrears payable by the petitioner under law. This order will not to give any right to the petitioner. This will only be an interim arrangement pending auction. It is made clear that the authority will proceed the auction either before the Election or after the Election. At the same time, the auction period will commence from 01.07.2016 and the petitioner is also liberty to participate in the auction. 9. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the writ petition is disposed of and the petitioner is to continue there only for a period three months upto 30.06.2016 on payment of charges at 40% over and above the earlier year amount so as to avoid loss to the exchequer. It is made clear that it is a condition precedent, namely, payment of money. Further, this order should not be construed as his right to continue further. He will vacate and hand over possession on 30.06.2016 without claiming any right. No costs. It is made clear that it is a condition precedent, namely, payment of money. Further, this order should not be construed as his right to continue further. He will vacate and hand over possession on 30.06.2016 without claiming any right. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed.