JUDGMENT : Dinesh Mehta, J. 1. The petitioner has been awarded a contract for toll tax collection for Collection of Toll Tax on (i) Fateh Nagar-Dariba Road (MDR-33) from Km 01/500 to 18/000 and (ii) Mangalwar-Nimbahera Road (MDR-11A) from Km 0/0 to 37/0 for the period from 16.02.2019 to 15.02.2021. The awarder is Rajasthan State Road Development and Construction Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the RSRDC" or "the Corporation"). 2. An agreement incorporating terms of contract came to be executed between the petitioner and the respondent-corporation on 15.02.2019. 3. The aforesaid contract was awarded for a sum of Rs. 22,85,00,000/- (twenty two crores, eighty five lacs) and TCS @ 2% thereupon Rs. 45,70000/- totalling the amount to Rs. 23,30,70,000/- (twenty three crores, thirty lacs, seventy thousand). 4. As per the terms of the contract/sanction letter, the petitioner deposited advance installment amounting to Rs. 1,16,53,500/- (one crore, sixteen lacs, fifty three thousand, five hundred). The remaining 95% of the amount of the agreement i.e. Rs. 22,14,16,500/- (twenty two crores, fourteen lacs, sixteen thousand, five hundred) was required to be paid in 24 equal monthly installments. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that due to rainy season, vehicular traffic reduced, which resulted in low collection of the toll, for which he was unable to deposit his monthly installments. 6. On petitioner's failure to deposit the amount of monthly installment, a communication was sent to the petitioner informing that the terms of the contract have been violated and the performance security deposited by the petitioner was encashed by the RSRDC on 19.09.2019. 7. The respondent-corporation in the same letter called upon the petitioner to furnish the Bank Guarantee, in terms of the contract, within a period of seven days, failing which the contract would be terminated and earnest money forfeited. 8. In response to the letters so sent by the respondent RSRDC Corporation, the petitioner requested it to allow a month's time to furnish Bank guarantee. 9. On failure of the petitioner to furnish Bank guarantee, the respondent RSRDC has decided to terminate petitioner's contract/agreement with the respondent Corporation and initiated fresh process for awarding of the contract by way of issuing e-auction notice No. 205/2019-20 dated 04.10.2019. 10. 9. On failure of the petitioner to furnish Bank guarantee, the respondent RSRDC has decided to terminate petitioner's contract/agreement with the respondent Corporation and initiated fresh process for awarding of the contract by way of issuing e-auction notice No. 205/2019-20 dated 04.10.2019. 10. For completing the narration of facts, it may be noted that a corrigendum dated 11.10.2019 came to be issued, whereby date of sale of tender has been postponed from 14.10.2019 to 13.11.2019 and date of opening of the tender document was correspondingly deferred from 15.10.2019 to 14.11.2019. 11. Challenging the NIT dated 04.10.2019 and the corrigendum dated 11.10.2019, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. 12. Mr. Mahendra Vishnoi, learned counsel for the petitioner though initially challenged the action of the respondent-corporation by contending that the RSRDC was not justified in issuing fresh NIT without terminating the petitioner's contract. However, realising that the petitioner's case is on a weak foundation, tried to mould his relief and on instructions submitted that petitioner be allowed some time (upto 31.12.2019) to furnish Bank guarantee. 13. Mr. Ankur Mathur, learned counsel having entered caveat on behalf of the respondent- corporation, opposed the writ petition by submitting that in a contractual matter like the one at hand, the Court should not interfere and the parties should be left to avail alternative remedies available under the general law. 14. In response to the proposal made by the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent-corporation submitted that the respondent would perhaps consider petitioner's request, if he deposits advance installment upto 31.12.2019 so that in case he fails to furnish Bank guarantee, the State's interest is secured. 15. Considering the fair proposal made by the respondent, the Court asked learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether, he would be willing to submit advance installments till 31.12.2019. Learned counsel after discussing this proposal showed petitioner's inability to accept even these terms. 16. In the opinion of this Court, the petitioner having taken the contract with wide eyes opened, cannot wriggle out of his contractual obligations, merely because for some reason or the other, the collection of toll has plunged, the petitioner cannot claim immunity even on equitable considerations. This Court in the given facts is not inclined to issue any direction to the respondent-corporation, much less a direction to defer the period of furnishing the Bank guarantee. 17. This Court in the given facts is not inclined to issue any direction to the respondent-corporation, much less a direction to defer the period of furnishing the Bank guarantee. 17. Concededly, the petitioner has failed to pay the contracted amount, for which the respondents have encashed the Bank guarantee which was furnished as a performance security. Such being the position, the respondent-RSRDC was legally justified in issuing fresh NIT for award of the contract for collection of Toll. 18. This Court does not find any illegality or arbitrariness in issuance of fresh NIT, as the breach of the contract is writ large. 19. The petitioner has declined to accept even a fair/reasonable proposal given by the respondent, the petitioner is, thus, not even entitled to get equitable relief. 20. This Court does not find any case worth interference or indulgence; the writ petition, therefore, fails. 21. Stay petition also stands dismissed accordingly.