JUDGMENT : The case is taken up through Video Conferencing. At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the office are ignored. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the letter as contained in letter No. 1340 dated 10.06.2021 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) issued by the respondent No.2 whereby the work order/agreement for comprehensive maintenance contract (CMC) of installed/available freeze, deep freeze, split AC, window AC, centralized AC of modular OT in various departments of MGM Medical College & Hospital, Jamshedpur has been terminated. Further prayer has been made for quashing e-tender notice dated 22.06.2021 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition), published in the daily newspaper “Dainik Bhaskar” dated 24.06.2021, issued by the respondent No.2 whereby a fresh tender has been invited from the agency/company for the said work. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to allow it to do the said work as per the terms of e-tender notice dated 18.02.2020 and the agreement dated 05.06.2020. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the letter as contained in letter No. 1340 dated 10.06.2021 issued by the respondent No.2, submits that unilateral termination of the agreement as well as the work order issued to the petitioner by the respondent No.2 is wholly arbitrary and illegal. Moreover, the respondent No.2 cannot invite a fresh e-tender for the work in question during the subsistence of the agreement executed between the petitioner and the respondent No.2. It is further submitted that the petitioner and the respondent No.2 had executed the agreement on 05.06.2020 for the said work, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Paragraph 2 of the said agreement clearly indicates that the period of agreement was for two years. It has also been stipulated in paragraph 3 of the said agreement that if the work of the agency is found satisfactory, the same would be extended for further period of one year. Since the period of the said agreement is still subsisting, issuance of the impugned letter dated 10.06.2021 by the respondent No.2 cancelling the work order as well as the agreement is illegal and arbitrary. Since the period of the said agreement is still subsisting, issuance of the impugned letter dated 10.06.2021 by the respondent No.2 cancelling the work order as well as the agreement is illegal and arbitrary. Moreover, the other conditions as mentioned in e-tender notice dated 18.02.2020 also stipulate that the same will be effective for a period of two years from the date of its approval which may be extended with the consent of both the parties for further period, if the work of the agency is found satisfactory. Mr. Mohan Dubey, learned A.C to A.G appearing on behalf of the State-respondent, while countering the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the period of two years as mentioned in the other terms and conditions of e-tender notice dated 18.02.2020 is the maximum period for which the said tender was said to be effective. Though paragraphs 2 & 3 of the agreement dated 05.06.2020 executed between the parties are not happily worded, yet on careful perusal of paragraph 2 of the same, it would be evident that the second party i.e. the petitioner had to execute the said work for the period of two years at the rate fixed in the said tender. Moreover, the same has to be read with the work order issued to the petitioner on the next date of execution of the agreement i.e. 06.06.2020 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) which has properly explained about the maximum period of the work allotted to the petitioner. It has clearly been mentioned in the said work order that the same will be for a period of one year i.e. from 07.06.2020 to 06.06.2021 which can be extended for further period of one year, if the work of the agency (the petitioner) is found satisfactory. Though there is some ambiguity in paragraphs 2 & 3 of the agreement dated 05.06.2020, yet the work order dated 06.06.2020 is quite clear that the period of the work awarded to the petitioner will be for one year which can be extended for further period of one year, if its work is found satisfactory. Though there is some ambiguity in paragraphs 2 & 3 of the agreement dated 05.06.2020, yet the work order dated 06.06.2020 is quite clear that the period of the work awarded to the petitioner will be for one year which can be extended for further period of one year, if its work is found satisfactory. Since the period of work order issued to the petitioner has already ended on 06.06.2021, the respondent No.2 has come out with the impugned letter dated 10.06.2021 cancelling the work order as well as the agreement of the petitioner and has invited a fresh e-tender notice for the said work. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the contents of the writ petition. The petitioner being a successful tenderer in pursuance of e-tender notice dated 18.02.2020, was awarded the said work and an agreement to that effect was executed on 05.06.2020. On perusal of paragraphs 2 & 3 of the said agreement, it appears that the second party (the petitioner) had to execute the said work for a period of two years at the rate fixed in terms with the said tender. Moreover, if the work of the agency was found satisfactory, the period of the same would be extended for further period of one year. However, on the next date i.e. 06.06.2020, vide letter No. 1335, the work order was issued to the petitioner by the respondent No.2 in which it was clearly mentioned that the period of the work allotted to the petitioner in terms with e-tender No. 427 dated 18.02.2020 would be from 07.06.2020 to 06.06.2021 i.e. for the period of one year. It was also mentioned inter alia that the period of work would be extended for further period of one year, if the petitioner’s work was found satisfactory. This Court finds that there is some ambiguity in the period of work mentioned in the agreement dated 05.06.2020, however, the work order dated 06.06.2020 issued on the next date of execution of the agreement clearly mentions the period of work as one year i.e. from 07.06.2020 to 06.06.2021 and as such the same is unambiguous. It has been further stipulated therein that the said period would be extended for further period of one year, if the work of the petitioner is found satisfactory. It has been further stipulated therein that the said period would be extended for further period of one year, if the work of the petitioner is found satisfactory. Thus, if there was a difference in the period of work mentioned in the agreement dated 05.06.2020 and the work order dated 06.06.2020, the petitioner should have immediately raised its objection before the respondent No.2 as it was of vital importance for it. It, however, did not raise any objection on the said aspect after issuance of the work order dated 06.06.2020 in which the period of work was clearly mentioned as one year. Raising the said issue after completion of the period of one year banking on the terms of the agreement dated 05.06.2020, would be of no help to the petitioner at this stage. Since the period of the said work i.e. from 07.06.2020 to 06.06.2021 has already expired and a fresh e-tender notice has been issued, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned letter dated 10.06.2021 as well as e-tender notice dated 22.06.2021 issued by the respondent No.2. The present writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.