JUDGMENT : VINEET SARAN, J. The Opposite Party-Paradip Port Trust had invited tenders for a project called “Request for Qualification for Development of Deep Draught Coal Berth on Build, Operate and Transfer basis” for a period of 30 years. In February 2009, discussions were held between the intending bidders and opposite party. Thereafter on 21.08.2009, the petitioner-company was declared as the successful bidder and was issued with the ‘Letter of Award’ (LoA). The Concession Agreement was entered into between the opposite party and the petitioner-company on 10.11.2009. As per clause 3 of the said agreement, there were certain conditions to be complied, both by the petitioner-company as well as the opposite party. Besides other conditions, the petitioner-company was to furnish “Financial Close” as had been defined in the said Concession Agreement. Clause 3.1(b) of the Concession Agreement provided for the Conditions Precedent to be satisfied by the opposite party. Clause 3.2 provided for the Conditions Precedent to be complied with by both the parties within 180 days of the Concession Agreement, which in the present case, was entered into on 10.11.2009. For convenience clause nos. 3.1(b) and 3.2 of Concession Agreement are reproduced below : “3.1 xx xx xx (b) The following Conditions Precedent shall be satisfied by the Concessioning Authority : (i) procurement of the clearances required for the Project, as set out in Appendix 8; (ii) handing over physical possession of the Project Site and/or the Port’s Assets for the purposes of the Project; 3.2 The aforesaid Conditions Precedent shall be complied with within 180 (one hundred and eighty) Days of the date of the Agreement. Each Party shall promptly inform the other Party in writing when the Conditions Precedent for which it is responsible have been satisfied.” 2. Admittedly, neither of the parties complied with the Conditions Precedent as contemplated in Clause 3.2 of the Concession Agreement. The time of 180 days provided in the Concession Agreement was extended mutually, either expressly or impliedly, from time to time and finally on 10.03.2015, the opposite party obtained various clearances and fulfilled the Conditions Precedent as per clause 3.1(b). The petitioner-company was given 180 days time from the said date, i.e., 10.03.2015 by the opposite party for complying with the Conditions Precedent provided under clause 3.1(b) of the agreement. The petitioner-company was given 180 days time from the said date, i.e., 10.03.2015 by the opposite party for complying with the Conditions Precedent provided under clause 3.1(b) of the agreement. Such time of 180 days from 10.03.2015 was extended by the opposite party from time to time, which was finally extended up to 327 days, and came to an end on 31.01.2016. Admittedly, the petitioner-company did not comply with and fulfill the Conditions Precedent as prescribed, within the aforesaid time. 3. There was no communication between the petitioner-company and the opposite party after 31.01.2016 until 03.03.2016, when the termination notice was issued by the opposite party giving the details of various extensions granted and noticing that the petitioner-company had not performed and discharged its part of the obligations under the Concession Agreement within the extended time of 31.01.2016, and by invoking clause 3.6 of the Concession Agreement, such termination notice was issued for fulfilling the conditions within a further period of 90 days from the receipt of the notice, failing which the Concession Agreement dated 10.11.2009 entered into between the opposite party and the petitioner-company, would stand terminated. 4. According to the petitioner-company, since notice dated 03.03.2016 was served on the petitioner-company on 07.03.2016, the said period of 90 days was to expire on 07.06.2016. Prior to the said date, the petitioner-company had furnished a Performance Bank Guarantee of Rs.20 crore on 03.06.2016. However, the other requirements of “Financial Close”, were not fulfilled by the petitioner-company and further extension was sought for. There was no response to the communication dated 03.06.2016 by the opposite party and then again on 02.09.2016, the petitioner-company wrote to the opposite party for further extension. However, when the opposite party did not respond to any of such communications made by the petitioner-company nor accepted the bank guarantee submitted on 03.06.2016, the petitioner-company approached this Court by filing this writ petition primarily with the prayer for quashing the termination notice dated 03.03.2016 and for extending the time for fulfilling its obligations under clause 3.1(a) of the Concession Agreement, and for fulfilling the Conditions Precedents, and also for quashing of fresh tender call notice. 5. We heard Mr. Asok Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel along Mr. Sanjaat Das, learned counsel for the petitioner-company, as well as Mr. S.D. Das, learned Senior Counsel along with Mr. Haripada Mohanty, learned counsel for the opposite party, and perused the record. 5. We heard Mr. Asok Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel along Mr. Sanjaat Das, learned counsel for the petitioner-company, as well as Mr. S.D. Das, learned Senior Counsel along with Mr. Haripada Mohanty, learned counsel for the opposite party, and perused the record. Pleadings between the parties have been exchanged. On consent of the parties, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage. The facts, as narrated, are not disputed by the parties. 6. Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner-company submits that after the parties had entered into the Concession Agreement on 10.11.2009, within a period of 180 days, the petitioner-company had furnished the sanction letter of Performance Bank Guarantee of Rs.20 crore on 20.01.2010. The other Conditions Precedent, as prescribed, were also being fulfilled by the petitioner-company, but the opposite party had also not fulfilled its part of the obligation, as required under clause 3.1(b) of the Concession Agreement until 10.03.2015, which was nearly 5½ years after the parties entered into the Concession Agreement on 10.11.2009, and was required to be completed within 180 days. It is contended that there might have been some default on the part of the petitioner-company, but the intention of the petitioner-company to fulfill its obligations under clause 3.1(a) of the Concession Agreement was absolutely clear as substantial part of the obligations had been fulfilled on 20.01.2010, when the petitioner-company furnished the sanction letter for Performance Bank Guarantee of Rs.20 crore. 7. It is contended that the default was on the part of the opposite party, as it had not obtained necessary clearance from the Government Departments and had not handed over physical possession of the site within prescribed period of 180 days and took more than five years, because of which the petitioner-company had to take time for fulfilling its part of the obligations. Learned counsel further submits that intention of the petitioner-company was always to fulfill its part of obligations within the time, but because of some unforeseen circumstances and also because of the conduct of the opposite party in delaying its part of performance of obligations, the petitioner-company could not fulfill its obligations within 180 days from 10.03.2015 or during the extended time. 8. Mr. S.D.Das, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the opposite party submitted that the obligations to be fulfilled by the opposite party was delayed because certain clearance were to be obtained from different Government Departments. 8. Mr. S.D.Das, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the opposite party submitted that the obligations to be fulfilled by the opposite party was delayed because certain clearance were to be obtained from different Government Departments. However, it is contended that the time for fulfilling the obligations of the respective parties provided under clause 3.2, was extended from time to time and as a last opportunity the petitioner was granted 180 days from the date of handing over possession with effect from 10.03.2015, which also was extended from 180 days to 327 days, but the petitioner-company did not fulfill its part of obligations. It is contended that the petitioner-company would not be entitled to any sympathy, as even after the further extended period of 327 days, the petitioner-company was granted another 90 days to fulfill its obligation vide termination notice dated 03.03.2016 and the petitioner-company could not fulfill its obligation within such period also. Mr. Das further submitted that clause 3.6 of the Concession Agreement provides for maximum 180 days period to be granted in the termination notice, and though 90 days period was granted, which was permissible under clause 3.6, yet if 180 days is also taken as granted from 03.03.2015 which is the maximum period, then too the petitioner-company did not fulfill its part of obligations within the said period of 180 days, and as such the petitioner-company would not be entitled to any relief as sought for in this writ petition. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts of the case, we are of the opinion that the fault lies not on any one of the parties, as both the parties had delayed in fulfilling their part of the obligations, as provided under clause 3.1 of the Concession Agreement. The petitioner-company had made its intention clear that by obtaining sanction letter for Performance Bank Guarantee of Rs.20 crore within the period of 180 days from the date when the parties entered into the Concession Agreement. The opposite party admittedly could not fulfill its part of the obligations within the prescribed period of 180 days. It took more than five years to do so. Thereafter, the petitioner-company took substantial time and then also, besides furnishing the Performance Bank Guarantee, did not fulfill its part of obligation as prescribed under clause 3.1(a) of the Concession Agreement. The opposite party admittedly could not fulfill its part of the obligations within the prescribed period of 180 days. It took more than five years to do so. Thereafter, the petitioner-company took substantial time and then also, besides furnishing the Performance Bank Guarantee, did not fulfill its part of obligation as prescribed under clause 3.1(a) of the Concession Agreement. As such, in equity, we are of the opinion that the petitioner-company would not be entitled to the main relief of quashing the fresh tender notice. 10. However, considering the facts of the case and balancing the equities between the parties, we are of the opinion that since the opposite party was also at fault to quite some extent and had not fulfilled its part of obligation within 180 days and took more than five years to do so, the cancellation of the Concession Agreement should be without imposing any penalty and without forfeiting any security deposit made by the petitioner-company at the time of entering into the Concession Agreement, nor should it be treated as a defaulter for purpose of debarring it from future contracts. 11. Accordingly, we dispose of this writ petition with the direction that though the Concession Agreement dated 10.11.2009 would stand terminated, the opposite party would not be entitled to encash any security deposit or the bank guarantee and shall return the security deposit or the bank guarantee, which the petitioner-company had deposited at the time of entering into the Concession Agreement. Further, petitioner-company shall not be treated as a defaulter and the opposite party shall not invoke clause 2.2.8 of the Concession Agreement against the petitioner-company. No order as to costs.