JUDGMENT Ashok Kumar Gaur, J. - The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 02.05.2019 whereby license agreement of the petitioner for temporary occupation of premises has not been extended. 2. The facts of the case, in nutshell, are that the petitioner-institution is running an institution in the name of Deep Training Institute Private Limited, which is engaged in providing training and skill development to different students. The Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship introduced Pradhan Mantri Kaushal Vikas Yojana in the year 2016 and the said scheme is implemented by the National Skill Development Corporation under the guidance of Ministry of Skill Development. The programme is designed to impart short term training course to benefit the candidates who are either school or college dropout or unemployed persons. The petitioner-institution entered into an agreement for establishment of Skill Development Centre at Railway Senior Institute, Bandikui District Dausa and license agreement was executed for setting up of such Skill Development Centre between the Ministry of Railways and Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship and the petitioner-institution. The license agreement was for temporary occupation of Railway premises and some of the relevant conditions of license agreement are as under:- "5. That the Railways only agrees to give temporary occupation of the building and the license is liable to have this agreement cancelled at any time upon such notice as mentioned in Clause 7. 7. That the Railways shall be entitled at any time to give notice to the Licenseee of its intention to resume possession of the building and subject to the provisions hereinafter contained. The Licensee shall vacate the building remove all materials belonging to the Licensee and restore the building to its original status within 90 days after the date of such notice and the Railways shall not be responsible for any inconvenience, loss or damage that may be cause or done to the Licensee by reason of his having to vacate on such notice. 8. 8. That the Railways shall be at liberty to terminate this agreement and resume possession of a part/whole of the building licensed at any time before the expiry thereof on giving three months advance notice in writing and that without assigning any reason and without being liable to pay any compensation for such termination or partial resumption of the licensed building or for removal of any temporary structure put up by the Licensee. 25. That the license unless cancleed in terms of the provisions hereinafter contained shall remain in force for a period of one year commencing from 24-06-2016 and ending on 23-06-2017 and it can be extended or renewed for next One + One (Two) years after mutual consultation." 3. The petitioner-institution has pleaded that after receiving the possession, it started to conduct the training course in the year 2016 itself and trained about 700 students/trainees. The petitioner-institution has pleaded that as per clause for extension of period of agreement of Skill Development Centre, the petitioner-institution submitted an application for extension of period and the period was extended for 2 years i.e. from 24.06.2017 to 23.06.2019 by communication dated 11.09.2017. 4. The petitioner-institution has pleaded that National Skill Development Corporation has given it additional accreditation for the courses - Assistant Electrician; Field Technician-Computing and Peripherals; and Carpenter-Wooden Furniture. 5. The petitioner-institution has pleaded that for the year 2019, it was allowed to admit 720 students/candidates and permission was communicated on 09.01.2019 to admit 240 students for a period of six months in each course i.e. Carpenter-Wooden Furniture, Field Technician-Computing & Peripherals and Assistant Electrician. 6. The petitioner-institution has pleaded that after admitting 270 students, the petitioner-institution sent an application date 04.04.2019 for extension of railway premises as the students were to complete their courses in the month of August, 2019 and September, 2019. The petitioner-institution is said to have submitted another representation on 02.05.2019 for extension of license agreement. 7. The respondents in response of the request of the petitionerinstitution to extend the period of license agreement, in turn communicated vide order dated 03.05.2019 that the premises which have been given to the petitioner-institution will not be extended and the petitioner-institution is to vacate the premises latest by 23.06.2019 and possession was to be handed over back. 7. The respondents in response of the request of the petitionerinstitution to extend the period of license agreement, in turn communicated vide order dated 03.05.2019 that the premises which have been given to the petitioner-institution will not be extended and the petitioner-institution is to vacate the premises latest by 23.06.2019 and possession was to be handed over back. It was also communicated that the respondents-Railways were required to impart training to 450 Female Constables of Railway Protection Force and the said building was required for the purpose of imparting training to the said Female Constables. 8. The petitioner-institution feeling aggrieved by refusal to extend the period of license agreement by the respondents vide order dated 03.05.2019, has preferred the present writ petition. 9. This Court on 21.05.2019 by interim order stayed the effect and operation of order dated 03.05.2019 and the petitionerinstitution i.e. Skill Development Centre was allowed to continue at the same premises i.e. Senior Railway Institution, Bandikui. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner-institution has submitted that the impugned order has been passed by the respondents on a wrong promise. The counsel argued that as per clause (7) of the license agreement, the Railways were required to give notice of 90 days to the licensee petitioner and no notice has been given to the petitioner-institution and as such the entire action is vitiated in eye of law. The counsel further argued that the petitioner-institution was justified in asking for extension of period of agreement as the clause (25) of the license agreement permitted extension of time and lease period should have been renewed and extended by the Railways keeping in mind the completion of course of different students who were to complete their courses by September 2019. 11. Counsel argued that the petitioner-institution is implementing the scheme of Central Government through National Skill Development Corporation to improve the skills of unemployed youth and if the extension is not granted, purpose of the scheme will be frustrated. 12. Counsel, in last, submitted that since the petitionerinstitution has already made admissions and non-completion of courses by 720 students/trainees would seriously affect their career and as such, at least this Court may permit the petitionerinstitution to complete the training and petitioner-institution will be liable to vacate the premises after completion of course of the said batch, admitted in the month of April, 2019. 13. 13. The respondents have filed reply to the writ petition. The respondents have raised the preliminary objection about maintainability of the writ petition. The respondents have averred that the present writ petition is not maintainable as the contractual disputes cannot be challenged before the High Court in a writ petition. The respondents have further submitted that once the premises were given on lease, after executing an agreement and certain terms and conditions were agreed, the petitionerinstitution cannot be allowed to raise such grievance arising out of license agreement and writ petition is not the proper remedy. The respondents have also raised preliminary objection about concealment of material facts from this court as the period of license is prescribed initially for one year, which can be extended maximum for two years. The respondents have pleaded that the petitioner-institution is bound to vacate the premises on or before 23.06.2019 and holding of possession of the licensed promises beyond 23.06.2019, cannot be permitted in any case. The respondents have also pleaded that the terms and conditions of license agreement were known to the petitioner-institution and if it had given admission to the students beyond the period of 23.06.2019, the petitioner-institution cannot get any relief as knowing fully well the terms of license agreement, the petitionerinstitution has inducted the students and played with their life. 14. Learning Council appearing for the respondents Mr.P.C.Sharma has submitted that the terms and conditions of the license agreement were very specific. The petitioner-institution has already been given maximum extension and considering the urgency in the matter to impart training to 450 Female Constables of Railway Protection Force, it is imperative that building in question is required immediately. 15. Learned counsel has submitted that the Female Constables are required in large number and they are to be trained at Bandikui Training Centre. The Railway Board has directed to provide training to them and it was to commence from June, 2019. Learned counsel submitted that the premise which was given on lease to the petitioner-institution, looking to their requirement and urgency, is to be restored back. Counsel submitted that the respondents have also issued tender process of making certain constructions in the building as the safety and other requirements for Female Constables, are to be kept in mind. 16. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 17. Counsel submitted that the respondents have also issued tender process of making certain constructions in the building as the safety and other requirements for Female Constables, are to be kept in mind. 16. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 17. This Court on perusal of the various clauses of license agreement entered between the petitioner-institution and the respondent Railways finds that the petitioner-institution while signing the license agreement agreed to follow the terms and conditions set out therein. The relevant clause (25) provides that the term of license agreement will be for a period of one year commencing from 24.06.2016 ending on 23.06.2017 and it could be extended or renewed for next 1+1 = 2 years after mutual consultation. 18. This court finds that term of license agreement of the petitioner-institution has been extended upto 23.06.2019 and as per license agreement, the term was already extended upto the maximum period prescribed. This court finds that parties are bound by the terms and conditions which have been entered in the license agreement, while license was granted to the licensee petitioner. The claim of the petitioner-institution that it had a right to ask for an extension, is not tenable even from the bare reading of the terms and conditions which were agreed between the parties. 19. So far as the claim of the petitioner-institution that notice of 90 days ought to have been given to resume possession of the building and since 90 days notice was not given, the petitioner licensee is not liable to vacate the premises, this court finds that the petitioner-institution cannot invoke such clause of giving notice to it, once the maximum period prescribed for term of license, has already expired. 20. This court finds that the petitioner-institution while admitting the students was knowing the currency/term of license and knowing fully well that this period was come to an end on 23.06.2019, the petitioner-institution without having requisite license to run the course in the building ought not to have proceeded to grant admission to the students. 21. This court finds that the petitioner-institution has made admission knowing fully well that the building in which the training was imparted by it, was on lease upto 23.06.2019 and as such it ought to have taken care to carry out the scheme of the Government while giving admission to different students. 22. 21. This court finds that the petitioner-institution has made admission knowing fully well that the building in which the training was imparted by it, was on lease upto 23.06.2019 and as such it ought to have taken care to carry out the scheme of the Government while giving admission to different students. 22. This court finds substance in the submission of learned counsel for the respondents that there was necessity of getting the premises vacated as 450 Female Constables are to be imparted training at the Bandikui Training Centre and Railways being owner of the property/premises can use the same for its own purpose and as such no insistence can be allowed by any licensee, to continue in the possession of the property. 23. The interim order was passed by this court on 21.05.2019 and operation of the order dated 03.05.2019 was stayed and a positive direction was given to allow the Skill Development Centre of the petitioner-institution to continue at the premises in question i.e. Senior Railway Institute, Bandikui. The petitioner-institution in view of the stay order passed by this Court, has continued with the possession and further 720 students/trainees are undergoing the course of 6 months. 24. This court finds that due to interim order passed by this court, the court is required to consider the fate of the students, who are already undergoing the training as follows :- S. No. Sector Job Roll Batch Start Date Batch End Date 1. Furniture & fittings Carpenter-Wooden Furniture 26.04.2019 10.08.2019 2. Electronics & Hardware Field Technician Computing & Peripherals 26.04.2019 16.09.2019 3. Construction Assistant Electrician 26.04.2019 11.09.2019 25. The submission of learned counsel for the respondents that non-extension of license period cannot be the subject matter of the writ petition, this Court finds substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents and as such the writ petition challenging the terms and conditions of license agreement for giving the premises/building, for extended period, cannot be decided in a writ petition. 26. This Court, however, holding that writ petition is not maintainable before this Court, is also concerned with the situation where due to interim order the students have been continued to undergo the training. 26. This Court, however, holding that writ petition is not maintainable before this Court, is also concerned with the situation where due to interim order the students have been continued to undergo the training. These students are unemployed youth, who will be now left in lurch by virtue of any order passed by this Court asking the petitioner-institution to vacate the premises immediately, and their career will be affected. 27. This Court in order to maintain the balance and to protect the rights of both the parties, deems it proper to dispose of the present writ petition by directing the petitioner-institution to vacate the premises within a period of seven days after completion of the courses i.e. 16.09.2019, run by the petitionerinstitution in Sector: Furniture & Fittings (Job Roll : Carpenter Wooden Furniture; Sector: Electronics & Hardware (Job Roll : Field Technician Computing & Peripherals; Sector: Construction (Job Roll : Assistant Electrician). 28. This Court also holds that the respondent Railways will be free to take possession of the premises/building immediately after expiry of the said period (after seven days from 16.09.2019) and they would be free to proceed further to use the building as per their requirement of imparting training to the Female Constables or for any other purpose.