ORDER : 1. Though the matter comes up on an application filed by the respondents seeking vacation of the ad interim order dated 8/1/2020, looking to the nature of dispute involved and the submissions made, the arguments were finally heard. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the e-tender for securing service contract at Defence Laboratory, Jodhpur dated 26/11/2019 and a direction to extend the contract of the petitioner for another 09 months from the date of completion of period of 03 months granted through the supply order. 3. It is inter alia indicated in the writ petition that the petitioner agency is engaged in providing private security services and is empanelled with the Directorate General Resettlement (DGR). 4. The petitioner applied for sponsorship from DGR to participate in the tender process, wherein, ex-servicemen are employed for the purpose of providing security services and incidental services at the site at Defence Laboratory. The requisite sponsorship was accorded to the petitioner. 5. Invitation for bids to the prospective bidders through limited e-tender was issued by the respondent department for providing security service at Defence Laboratory, Jodhpur. The same was duly submitted, wherein, the petitioner was declared successful. 6. It is claimed that though the general terms and conditions annexed along with the tender did not specify the period for which the contract was to be extended after completion of initial period of first year of the contract, the petitioner and respondent no.1 mutually agreed that the said period of contract after completion of initial first year would be extended for a further period of one year. The contract dated 31/10/2018 was entered into between the parties, the petitioner successfully completed its first year of contract and when the first year was coming to an end, on request made by the respondent no.1 to extend the contract, the same was extended for a period of three months. 7. It is claimed that though in terms of clause 6.2 of the agreement, the same should have been extended for a period of one year, an understanding was given that the same will be further extended on completion of three months. However, the petitioner was surprised to see the e-procurement initiated by the respondents for grant of fresh tender and, therefore, the present writ petition has been filed. 8. However, the petitioner was surprised to see the e-procurement initiated by the respondents for grant of fresh tender and, therefore, the present writ petition has been filed. 8. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the action of the respondent in initiating fresh process is ex-facie illegal inasmuch as the tender conditions were very clear, wherein, the same was required to be extended for one year, however, the same though was wrongly extended for a period of three months, the respondents were bound to extend it for another 09 months and, therefore, the action of the respondents in this regard deserves to be quashed and set aside. 9. Another submission has been made that as the sponsorship accorded to the petitioner by the DGR was for a period of two years, the same could not be reduced by the respondents and on that count also the action of the respondents in not extending the contract of the petitioner/floating new tender cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be set aside. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 vehemently made submissions that the plea raised by the petitioner in this regard has no substance. Submissions were made that the delivery period in the invitation of bid (Annex.4) was clearly stipulated as 12 months from the effective date of the contract. The contract entered into between the parties also provided for extension, if agreed mutually and that when the extension was offered for three months, the same was accepted by the petitioner and, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not bound by the said extension period, which once offered to the petitioner cannot require the respondents to extend the same. 11. Submissions were made that the petition filed by the petitioner is even otherwise not maintainable on account of availability of alternative remedy by way of arbitration as per the terms of the contract and on that count also the petition deserves to be dismissed. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent no.4, the successful bidder, supported the plea raised by the respondent no.1 and submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 13. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 14. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent no.4, the successful bidder, supported the plea raised by the respondent no.1 and submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 13. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 14. A bare look at the invitation of bids for Security Services Contract (Annex.4) dated 8/5/2018 would reveal that the delivery period has been indicated as under: “4. Delivery Period : Expected Delivery Period for supply of items/rendering services would be 12 months from the Effective Date of the Contract. Please note that the Contract can be cancelled unilaterally by the Buyer in case items are not received within the contracted delivery period. Extension of contracted delivery period with/without LD clause will be at the sole discretion of the Buyer.” 15. After the successful bid of the petitioner, the contract entered into between the parties dated 31/10/2018 indicated the duration of the contract as under: “CLAUSE-6 DURATION OF CONTRACT 6.1 This contract shall remain in force for a period from 01st Nov.2018 to 31st Oct. 2019. The date of resumption of services would be effective date. 6.2 Based on the performance of the contractor, Director, Defence Laboratory, Jodhpur at his discretion may extend the period of contract for a further period of one year at the prevailing rates of DGR, if agreed mutually.” 16. Admittedly, the delivery period indicated as per the bid document was 12 months from the effective date of contract and the same did not provide for any extension. The reference of extension indicated in the clause pertains in case of any delay in delivering the services as reference is made to the liquidated damages (L.D.). In the contract entered into between the parties, the period indicated is 1/11/2018 to 31/10/2019 and it is then indicated that the extension of period for further period of one year would be at the discretion of the Director, Defence Laboratory and if mutually agreed. 17. Pursuant to the said contract, by communication dated 3/7/2019 (Annex.7) following request for confirmation was made to the petitioner: “Dear Sir, It is to inform you that we are planning to extend the Security Services Contract at DLJ for further three months. In this connection kindly offer your willingness to extend the contract for three months w.e.f. 01st Nov. 2019 to 31st Jan. In this connection kindly offer your willingness to extend the contract for three months w.e.f. 01st Nov. 2019 to 31st Jan. 2020 on same terms and conditions. Treat the matter as most urgent.” 18. The petitioner responded to the same vide Annex.R/1 dated 10/7/2019 as under: “Dear Sir, 1. Kindly refer your SO No. DL/ST/1601/2018- 2019/SO-85 dated 31 Oct 2018 and letter dated 03 Jul 2019. 2. It is submitted that we agree to continue our services for another three months i.e. upto 31 Jan 2019 on the same terms and conditions mentioned in the supply order No. DLJ/ST/1601/2018-2019/SO-85 dated 31 Oct 2018 and as amended time to time.” 19. A perusal of the above request for confirmation would reveal that it was specifically indicated to the petitioner that the respondents were planning to extend the contract for further 3 months on same terms and conditions and sought willingness of the petitioner. The petitioner without raising any objection agreed to continue the services for 3 months on the same terms and conditions. 20. The petitioner on receipt of the communication dated 3/7/2019 and while sending the response dated 10/7/2019 was well aware of the circumstance that he has been granted extension for a period of 03 months only, which would end on 31/1/2020. The extension of the contract for 03 months was agreed to by the petitioner without any objection/protest and without insisting for extending the same for a minimum period of one year. Whereafter, once the fresh bids were invited and same was in the process of being finalized, the petition has been filed challenging the action of the respondents in issuing the bids. 21. Before approaching this Court apparently the petitioner did not even approach the respondents for seeking extension beyond 31/1/2020, even after coming to know of the fresh bids having been invited by the respondents. The very fact that the petitioner did not approach the respondents clearly indicates that the plea raised regarding any assurance having been given to the petitioner for extension of the contract for a period of one year either at the time of entering into the contract or at the time of extension has no basis. 22. The very fact that the petitioner did not approach the respondents clearly indicates that the plea raised regarding any assurance having been given to the petitioner for extension of the contract for a period of one year either at the time of entering into the contract or at the time of extension has no basis. 22. Insofar as the plea raised based on clause 6.2 is concerned, the clause of extension is qualified by use of words ‘at the discretion’ and ‘if mutually agreed’ and, therefore, it cannot be said that the term of 1 year as indicated in the contract is per se enforceable. In fact the period of one year is the outer limit inasmuch as requirement therein is that the said extension would be at the prevailing rates of DGR and, therefore, the plea raised that extension if any could be for a period of one year and not for 03 months only also cannot be sustained. 23. The submission made that as the DGR vide his sponsorship indicated the duration of contract as 2 years, the contract could not have been for less than 2 years also, apparently, has no substance as the period indicated in the bid document would govern the contract and not the indication made in the sponsorship and/or the alleged private talks which the petitioner claims to have had with the respondents. 24. In view of the above discussion, no case for interference is made out. There is no substance in the writ petition and the same is therefore dismissed.