JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - On 2.4.2018 respondent No.3 invited quotations, for, the supply of medicines/drugs, to, respondent No.2. The writ petitioner participated in the relevant tendering process, and, after completion thereof, its bid became accepted. On 24.7.2019 respondent No.3 placed an order, with the petitioner, for, its supplying to respondent No.2, the medicines/drugs, qua, wherewith the petitioner become declared, as, a successful bidder. On 22.9.2019, the, petitioner sought extension, of, time to make the completest supplies, of, medicines/drugs, qua wherewith hence supplies/orders were placed, upon it, by respondent No.3. Moreover, the petitioner made, two successive representations, respectively on 1.11.2019 and on 10.12.2019, for the afore purpose. However, the respondents concerned, did not accord, to the petitioner, the, espoused extension. Hence, the writ petitioner prays, for, a mandamus being made, upon, the respondents concerned, to, accord the apposite extension(s) qua it. 2. Respondents No. 1 and 2 in their reply meted, to the writ petition strived, to, blunt the afore made endevour, before this Court, by the learned counsel for the petitioner, and, the afore strivings became rested, upon, a covenant borne in clause 8.1 of the tender, clause whereof stands extracted hereinafter, a reading whereof makes trite underlinings qua (i) the respondents concerned being empowered to, at any time, during, the, period, of, operation of the tender/contract, hence place the supply/orders, (ii) and, thereupon, it becoming incumbent upon the supplier to mete absolute compliance(s) therewith, hence within 65 days, from, the date of making, of, the supplies/orders, and, also a prescription becomes borne therein, that, after 90 days, since the making of the supplies/ orders, by the respondents, hence, upon, the supplier rather no supplies being accepted rather the bid(s) standing ipso facto automatically cancelled. Nonetheless therein also occurs, a, covenant, purveying facility to the successful bidder, to seek, and its being granted, the apposite extended period of 25 days. However, the sought, for, extension hence by the successful bidder, being with a rider, in as much, as, the relevant manufacturing processes, evidently consuming more time than that, of, other manufacturing(s). "8.1 The supply orders may be placed at any time during the validity period of the tender/contract. However, the sought, for, extension hence by the successful bidder, being with a rider, in as much, as, the relevant manufacturing processes, evidently consuming more time than that, of, other manufacturing(s). "8.1 The supply orders may be placed at any time during the validity period of the tender/contract. It shall be incumbent upon the suppliers to perform and execute the supply orders for medicines/products in full in letter & spirit and deliver the ordered medicines/products to the consignee/indenting Rogi Kalyan Smiti within 65 days from the date of issue of supply orders failing which the late delivery charges shall be charged for supplies delayed beyond 65 days as under:- i) Day 66 to 75 @ 1% of the amount of supplies late delivered. ii) Day 76 to 85 @ 3% of the amount of supplies late delivered. Iii) Day 86 to 90 @ 5% of the amount of supplies late delivered. After 90 days, no supplies shall be accepted and the supply order(s) for rest of supplies shall stand cancelled automatically. In case of non/delayed supply by the L1 firms, the unsupplied medicines will be procured by the H.P State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. From the L2 and so on at risk and cost of LP approved firm. The H.P State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. Will be at liberty to blacklist, forfeit the EMD debar the approved supplier (defaulter) for three years, from participation in the tender for the products not supplied. However, period of 65 days can be extended by maximum of 25 days in those exceptional cases wherein the manufacturing process of some medicines takes longer time than that of other medicines. For this application to the Director Ayurveda shall be made well before 45th days of issue of supply orders supported by reasons for delay in supply of particular medicine. No extension shall be granted, unless it is duly issued in favour of the applicant." 3. Further more, it also becomes covenanted therein, vis-a-vis, the afore application, for the espoused extension, being made to the Director, Ayurveda well before elapsing, of, a period of 45 days. Lastly, it is also covenanted therein, vis-a-vis, there being no deemed extension, unless it is granted, through a scribed order, hence made by the authorities concerned. 4. Further more, it also becomes covenanted therein, vis-a-vis, the afore application, for the espoused extension, being made to the Director, Ayurveda well before elapsing, of, a period of 45 days. Lastly, it is also covenanted therein, vis-a-vis, there being no deemed extension, unless it is granted, through a scribed order, hence made by the authorities concerned. 4. The applicability of the afore contractual clause, vis-a-vis, the lis at hand, does necessitate makings, of, earmarkings, rather through a detailed analysis of the factual matrix, for, therethroughs discernment being made, vis-a-vis, the relevant factual matrix, becoming amenable, for, apt applying(s) thereon, vis-a-vis, the afore relevant contractual clause. The afores become(s) garnered, from, the un-controverted factum, of, the order for apposite supplies, being placed by respondent No.3, upon, the petitioner on 24.7.2019, and, thereafter it becoming incumbent, upon, the petitioner, to, within 90 days thereafter, make, the relevant supplies, to respondent concerned. However uncontrovertedly the writ petitioner supplied 3 truck loads of the relevant medicines/drug, to respondent No.2. The afore factum is borne in Annexure P-10 (colly), and, the date(s) of making, of, the afore Annexure, is, 16.10.2019/20/10/2019. Since the completest supplies rather for forbidding, the, respondents, to, invoke the rescinding power, were, under the apposite contractual clause, hence enjoined to be made, by the petitioner to respondent No.3, within 90 days, to be computed from 24.7.2019, hence the afore tenure, of, 90 days elapsed on 24.10.2019. Nonetheless thereat only a fragment, of, the supplies became made by the petitioner to respondent No.3, in as much, as, it becoming not rebutted hence by the respondents, vis-a-vis, its making some supplies/orders, before 24.10.2019. 5. Even though, upon, the afore failure(s) of the petitioner, to, within the apposite contractual tenure, of, 90 days, hence, make the contractually enjoined completest supplies, of, the relevant medicines/drugs, to respondent No.2, hence thereat ipso facto occurred automatic rescission, of, the apposite contract, (i) nonetheless a further covenant becomes borne therein, vis-a-vis, the supplier being facilitated, to, seek extension there beyond, up to 25 days, clause whereof became capitalized, by the petitioner, through its making a communication hence embodied in Annexure P-9, to, respondent No.2. However, the apposite elicited compliance affidavit, as, became requisitioned, through, an order made on 15.9.2020, hence, carries therein a disclosure, vis-a-vis, the espoused extension rather becoming refused, and, thereupon the respondents contend qua (a) theirs being empowered to invoke the echoings borne in the apposite contractual clause, hence forbidding, the, petitioner, to, upon elapse of the apposite contractual tenure, of, 90 days, and, when thereat no completest supplies are made, by it, from hence its making, the, fullest supplies, and, rather therethrough(s) the contract becoming ipso facto rescinded (b) moreover, hence the factum of any supplies being made before 24.10.2019, by the petitioner to respondent No.2, being not construable, as, any deemed sanction, as it remained unaccompanied by any contractually enjoined scribed document, hence, authored by the authorities concerned (c) also the afore relevant contractual clause being unamenable, for judicial review, by this Court nor any principle of promissory estoppel, anvilled upon any deemed extension, being available to the petitioner, merely through its making supplies, before 24.10.2019, to, the respondent concerned. 6. This Court has made a deep circumspect application, vis-a-vis, the echoings, borne in the relevant contractual clause, and, has also applied its mind, to the impact, if any, of the deemed grant, of, extension, to the petitioner hence ensuing, from, respondents, hence accepting the supplies within or beyond 90 days. Normally this Court would not, in exercise of its constitutional discretion of judicial review, hence review the ipso facto rescission of the tender/contract nor this Court can forbid the contesting respondents, from, reembarking, upon, the relevant rebidding process. However, the afore restraints, in, the exercise of judicial review, are yet not operable, upon, there occurring pervasive vices, of, malafides or gross non-application(s) of mind by the contesting respondents, in theirs refusing to accept supplies, from, the petitioner, despite, its holding the relevant stock (i) and, despite its showing its willingness to supply them. However, the afore restraints, in, the exercise of judicial review, are yet not operable, upon, there occurring pervasive vices, of, malafides or gross non-application(s) of mind by the contesting respondents, in theirs refusing to accept supplies, from, the petitioner, despite, its holding the relevant stock (i) and, despite its showing its willingness to supply them. Moreover, even when a part of the supplies became made, upon, respondent No.2 within 90 days from the date of supply order made on 24.7.2019, hence occurring within 24.10.2019, yet merely, upon, the respondents striving to enforce a contractual clause, borne in the relevant document, and, with echoings therein, vis-a-vis, on elapse of 90 days therefrom i.e 24.7.2019 (i) especially when no extension(s) were asked for, vis-a-vis, therethrough(s) hence the tender becoming amenable, for, ipso facto rescission, does also require makings, of, adjudication(s), vis-a-vis, constitutional validity thereof, hence, on the principle, of, any inviolable constitutional conscience becoming breached, or/ and on anchor, of, any stains of, arbitrariness and capriciousness, hence, percolating thereinto(s). 7. Consequently, it becomes imperative for this Court, to, unearth material hence suggestive, of, non-application of mind, and, also discover from, the material on record, qua hence, the constitutional unconscionableness, if any, of the afore alluded contractual clause, hence relied, upon, by the contesting respondents. 8. As aforestated a fragment of the supplies/orders, were made, by the petitioner to respondent No.2, and, also the afore supplies, were made within 24.10.2019. The availability to the petitioner, of, extension being meted, to it, in the tenure, as, embodied in the afore alluded contractual clause, is, hinged upon the factum, vis-a-vis, the relevant manufacturing process, of herbs/drugs, in respect whereof, it was declared a successful bidder, in as much as, the herbs/drugs taking immense quantum of manufacturing time as also, vis-a-vis, for arranging materials, for, thereafter theirs becoming supplied. Significantly, the afore espousal, of, the contesting respondents, becomes rested, upon, consonant therewith echoings, borne, in, the relevant clause, clause whereof stands extracted hereinbefore. In case, the afore factum is supported, by, cogent material placed, on, record, thereupon respondent No.2, in declining to mete, the, apposite extension, to the respondent, as became claimed by it, through Annexure P-9, would become frowned upon. In case, the afore factum is supported, by, cogent material placed, on, record, thereupon respondent No.2, in declining to mete, the, apposite extension, to the respondent, as became claimed by it, through Annexure P-9, would become frowned upon. Since the afore contractual facts, are anvilled, upon Annexure P-9, and also when there is no adequate rebuttal meted thereto, by the contesting respondents, thereupon the relevant factum borne therein, does facilitate, the petitioner, to, seek the espoused extension. In aftermath any denial thereof is unvindicable. 9. Moreover when the petitioner has supplied part, of, the drug/medicines to respondent No. 2, yet, denial thereof, through the apposite compliance affidavit hence, placing on record, the apposite abstract of diary and dispatch register, and, its disclosing, vis-a-vis, therethrough rescission being made (i) also appears to be contrived, and, invented as only stamp of Rs. 5, has been affixed, on the postal cover, and, (ii) more so when facsimile of the postal cover remains neither placed on record nor becomes appended therewith, (iii) besides when the petitioner argues that he was adopting email mode of correspondence(s) with the respondents concerned, argument whereof remains unhinged, hence the respondents in not making recoursing thereto, rather theirs recoursing the postal mode, also constrains this Court, to, make a conclusion, vis-a-vis, the respondents in a short shrift manner, and, without application of mind, and, rather with sheer malafides, rather taking to invoke, the, relevant contractual clause, against the petitioner, (iv) moreso, when despite its satisfying the relevant echoings, as, borne in the apposite clause , thereupon it becomes entitled, to, the benefit of the relevant extension hence for the relevant purpose. Moreover, any rigid adherence, to the time schedules, as, mentioned therein, would be inappropriate, (i) as thereupon the purpose or the underlying object thereof in as much, as, extensions, being affordable upon manufacturing processes evidently being delayed, would become blunted. Hence, flexibility thereto is to be assigned, moreso, when unrebutted material in consonance therewith becomes placed on record. 10. Moreover, any rigid adherence, to the time schedules, as, mentioned therein, would be inappropriate, (i) as thereupon the purpose or the underlying object thereof in as much, as, extensions, being affordable upon manufacturing processes evidently being delayed, would become blunted. Hence, flexibility thereto is to be assigned, moreso, when unrebutted material in consonance therewith becomes placed on record. 10. Be that as it may, though, there being no deemed extensions/grants, unless, made through authored scribing(s), and, whereupon the respondents strived, to, benumb the espousal of the counsel of the petitioner, to, claim the benefit, of, the principle of promissory estoppel, hence ensuing from the vivid factum, of its, supplying a part, of the supplies, also appears to be ingrained, with, a vice of blatant, and, sheer constitutional unconscionableness, (i) in as much, as, the afore espousal becomes rested, upon, the respondents rather deploying the afore stratagem, for, therethroughs theirs dislodging the afore valid endevour, of, the petitioner. The afore becomes fortifyingly garnered, from, the factum, of, valid and genuine reasons becoming enclosed, in, Annexure P-9, and, theirs falling within the ambit, of, the contractual covenants, hence scribed for the relevant purpose, yet the respondents untenably invoking, the ipso facto rescinding clause, (ii) and also whereupon(s) the unconscionability, of, the clause appertaining, to no deemed extension being grantable, rather holding no vigor. Moreover when it becomes rested solitarily, on the afore deployed stratagem, for therethroughs, the contract being rescinded, despite the petitioner evidently holding the relevant stock with it, to make the supplies, thereupon also the principle, of, promissory estoppel works qua the petitioner. The respondents concerned are directed, to, place an order, vis-a-vis, the petitioner, for, the supplying, of the relevant medicines/drugs, however subject to its/their fitness, and, suitability, in all respects, being declared by the agency concerned. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.