JUDGMENT : (Sandeep Mehta, J.) 1. This intra court appeal has been preferred by the State of Rajasthan for assailing the final order/judgment dated 13.01.2022 passed by the learned Single Bench accepting the writ petition preferred by the respondent firm and directing the appellants to permit the firm to carry out fishing activities in the Jawai Dam upto 31.03.2022. Further direction was given by the learned Single Bench to renew the fishing lease of the respondent-writ petitioner for the years 2022-23 and 2023-24 in terms of the NIT dated 12.03.2019 with periodic increase in the lease amount. 2. Brief facts relevant and essential for the disposal of the appeal are noted hereinbelow : The State Government issued Tender No.2 dated 12.03.2019 for carrying out fishing activities for the period of five years in various water bodies across the State of Rajasthan including Jawai Dam. It was stipulated in the tender document that the first year’s lease amount would be decided as per the highest financial bid and for the successive years, the fishing leases would be renewed with 12% increase in the lease amount of the previous year. It was further stipulated in the tender document that the successful bidder would have to deposit in advance, ¼th of the lease amount for the following year by 31st January of the current year alongwith security amount and the remaining ¾th of the lease amount would be payable by 15th March of the ongoing year. It was further stipulated in the tender document that the successful bidder would have to deposit in advance, ¼th of the lease amount for the following year by 31st January of the current year alongwith security amount and the remaining ¾th of the lease amount would be payable by 15th March of the ongoing year. The said condition of the tender document, which is relevant and germane for deciding the controversy is reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of ready reference :- ^^lHkh izoxZ ds fofufnZ”V tyk’k;ksa dks igys ls fofgr izfdz;k ds vuqlkj LVstst cढ+ksrjh ds vk/kkj ij lkekU;r% 5 o”kksZ dh le;kof/k ds fy, iV~Vs ij fn;k tk ldsxkA iV~Vsnkj dks izfro”kZ iV~Vs /ku dh lap;h cढ+rh jde dk lank; djuk vko’;d gksxkA ,slh cढ+ksrjh iwoZorhZ o”kZ dh iV~Vk jde dk 12 izfr’kr gksxhA rn~uqlkj vkxkeh o”kksZa ds fy, cढ+h gqbZ iV~Vs ¼yht½ jkf’k dk 1@4 jkf’k pkyw o”kZ dh 31 tuojh rd cढ+h gqbZ izfeHkwfr jkf’k lfgr tek djkbZ tkuh gksxh rFkk ‘ks”k 3@4 iV~Vk ¼yht½ jkf’k 15 ekpZ rd tek djkbZ tkuh gksxhA ;fn iV~Vsnkj mijksDr fofgr dkykof/k ds Hkhrj iV~Vk jde tek djkus ij vlQy jgrk gS rks i’pkrorhZ o”kZ ds fy, iN+yh idM+us dh vuqefr jÌ dj nh tk;sxh rFkk tyk’k; dks iqu% Bsds ij fn;k tk,xkA^^ 3. This condition was incorporated in the tender document as per Rule 6(3) of the Rajasthan Fisheries Rules, 1958 (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1958’), which is reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of ready reference :- “(3) For the water leased out, the lessee shall deposit the 1/4th of the lease amount of subsequent year alongwith security amount before 31st January and rest of the amount alongwith security money shall be forfeited and the tenderer/bidder shall be debarred from entering into fishing contract for a period of 2 years.” 4. The respondent firm applied for and was granted the lease for carrying out fishing activities in the Jawai Dam, Pali. It deposited the first installment of the lease amount as per the stipulation in the rule and the tender document. The firm, being the successful bidder was under an obligation to deposit the remaining ¾th of the lease amount by 15.03.2021. However, the firm filed a representation dated 08.01.2021 praying that the time period for payment of lease amount may be extended in wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. The firm, being the successful bidder was under an obligation to deposit the remaining ¾th of the lease amount by 15.03.2021. However, the firm filed a representation dated 08.01.2021 praying that the time period for payment of lease amount may be extended in wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Such representation was rejected by the competent authority vide order dated 22.02.2021 and on account of non-payment of the balance ¾th lease amount, fishing license awarded to the respondent firm was cancelled and it was debarred and blacklisted for two years from participating in future tender process vide order dated 07.06.2021. The respondent firm challenged the action of lease termination and blacklisting by filing the subject writ petition before learned Single Bench, which was accepted vide order dated 13.01.2022 with the following directions:- “11. In view of the aforesaid, it is hereby ordered that in case, the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs.1,50,00,000/-with the respondent-Fishing Department, they shall permit the petitioner to carry on fishing activities in Jawai Dam up to 31.03.2022. 11. The petitioner will be required to file an undertaking duly signed by one of the partners of the petitioner-firm within fifteen days from today to the effect that the petitioner will get the fishing license renewed for the year 2022-23 and 2023-24 in terms of the NIT dated 12.03.2019, with periodic increase in the license fee. 12. So far as requisite amount in relation to the next financial year 2022-23 is concerned, which is otherwise required to be paid by 31.01.2022 (1/4th) and 15.03.2022 (3/4th), the petitioner shall be permitted to deposit the same by 30.04.2022 and 30.06.2022 respectively. 13. On petitioner’s failure to fulfill any of the above-referred commitments, the respondents shall be free to cancel the license awarded to the petitioner, including blacklisting him without any further notice.” 5. The order dated 13.01.2022 passed by learned Single Bench is challenged in this intra court appeal. 6. Shri Salman Agha, associate to Mr. Anil Kumar Gaur, AAG, representing the appellant State, assailing the impugned order passed by the learned Single Bench, vehemently and fervently contended that quashing of the order, whereby fishing license of the respondent was cancelled and the consequential blacklisting is absolutely unjustified and contrary to Rule and the terms and conditions of the contract. He urged that interpretation and implementation of the clauses of contract cannot be subject matter of interference in writ jurisdiction. He urged that interpretation and implementation of the clauses of contract cannot be subject matter of interference in writ jurisdiction. Where terms of the contract are breached, remedy of approaching High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not available to the parties. He urged that the learned Single Bench was absolutely unjustified in exercising writ jurisdiction in a contractual dispute simply because the State could not find successful bidders in the fresh NIT issued for the fishing area in question. He further submitted that the provision of Rule 6(3) of the Rules of 1958 clearly stipulates that if the lessee fails to deposit lease amount in terms of the contract, the automatic consequence would be of forfeiture of security amount, cancellation of lease and blacklisting. He urged that the mandate of rule was not considered by the learned Single Bench while allowing the writ petition of the respondent and thus, the impugned order is bad in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed. He further urged that consequence of cancellation of license and blacklisting pursuant to non-deposit of license fee is automatic and thus, writ court ought not have interfered in the order dated 07.06.2021, which does not suffer from any illegality whatsoever. Shri Agha further submitted that previously, the respondent filed Writ Petition No.2008/2021, wherein the court granted latitude to the respondent through an interim order dated 04.02.2021, whereby the order canceling license was stayed subject to deposition of lease money as per the demand within six weeks. The said direction was further extended by order dated 06.04.2021. In spite of repeated indulgence, the petitioner filed to deposit the outstanding lease amount, whereupon the writ petition was dismissed by order dated 01.09.2021. He urged that while accepting the writ petition by the impugned order dated 13.01.2022, the learned Single Bench failed to advert to these orders, important facts and circumstances and that, the impugned order suffers from non-consideration of material facts and hence also, the same is liable to be reversed while accepting the appeal. 7. Per contra, learned Senior Advocate Dr. He urged that while accepting the writ petition by the impugned order dated 13.01.2022, the learned Single Bench failed to advert to these orders, important facts and circumstances and that, the impugned order suffers from non-consideration of material facts and hence also, the same is liable to be reversed while accepting the appeal. 7. Per contra, learned Senior Advocate Dr. Sachin Acharya, assisted by Shri Chayan Bothra, representing the respondent-writ petitioner, vehemently and fervently supported the impugned order passed by the learned Single Bench and urged that cancellation of the writ petitioner’s lease and the consequential order of blacklisting is not bonafide as the State authorities failed to find a successful bidder for the water body in question despite three successive NITs. He contended that the relief granted by the learned Single Bench to the lessee is equitable and beneficial to all parties and hence, there is no reason to interfere in the impugned order. He urged that pursuant to the direction given by the learned Single Bench, the respondent has acted diligently and has deposited the due lease money with the department and hence, no useful purpose would be served by interfering in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Bench. Regarding the argument of Shri Agha on the previous Writ Petition No.2008/2021, the contention of Dr. Acharya was that even after rejection of the earlier writ petition, the respondents could not succeed in getting a successful bidder to carry out the fishing activities in the water body and resultantly, the department is suffering huge losses and the public at large is being deprived of consuming fresh fish from the Jawai Dam and in these circumstances, the learned Single Bench rightly granted relief to the petitioner by the impugned order which is equitable and beneficial to all parties. He, thus, urged that the impugned order does not warrant interference and sought dismissal of the appeal. 8. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record. 9. At the outset, we may note that the relief which has been granted by the learned Single Bench to the respondent-writ petitioner is based on the concept of force majeure. The respondent-writ petitioner, while filing the writ petition did not even plead that there was any such clause in the NIT or the lease agreement. 9. At the outset, we may note that the relief which has been granted by the learned Single Bench to the respondent-writ petitioner is based on the concept of force majeure. The respondent-writ petitioner, while filing the writ petition did not even plead that there was any such clause in the NIT or the lease agreement. The fact remains that in the earlier round of litigation (S.B.C.W.P. No.2008/2021), when the lease of the firm was cancelled by the competent authority on account of non-deposit of the license fee in terms of the contract and the Rule 6(3) of the Rules of 1958, the court extended indulgence and gave the firm a breathing space to deposit the lease money by order dated 04.02.2021. The said period was further extended vide order dated 06.04.2021. However, despite repeated opportunities, the respondent-writ petitioner failed to deposit the requisite amount. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by this court vide order dated 01.09.2021. While passing this order, this Court took note of the order dated 07.06.2021. With this dismissal, the decision of the respondent authorities to cancel fishing lease of the petitioner attained finality. The learned Single Bench, while causing interference in the matter by order dated 13.01.2022, seems to have ignored the material facts and circumstances of the earlier round of litigation referred to supra. It cannot be disputed that the terms and conditions of the fishing lease are governed by Rule 6(3) of the Rules of 1958 reproduced supra. As per this rule, the inevitable consequence of non-deposit of lease money is cancellation of the lease, forfeiture of security money and debarring the tenderer/bidder from entering into a fishing contract for a period of two years i.e. blacklisting. The power of relaxation is only available for a limited window of 7 days and 15 days respectively as per the proviso to the said rule. However, it is not in dispute that the respondent-writ petitioner failed to deposit the lease money even in the extended period. There was no pleading in the writ petition that the relief was being sought on account the availability of force majeure clause in the agreement. However, it is not in dispute that the respondent-writ petitioner failed to deposit the lease money even in the extended period. There was no pleading in the writ petition that the relief was being sought on account the availability of force majeure clause in the agreement. Otherwise also, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of The Naihati Jute Mills Ltd vs Hyaliram Jagannat [ AIR 1968 SC 522 ], the courts have no general power of absolving a party from performance of his part of contract merely because its performance has become onerous on account of unforeseen turn of events. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Joshi Technologies International Inc. Vs. Union of India [ (2015) 7 SCC 728 ] determined that in pure contractual disputes, the extraordinary remedy of writ under Article 226 or 32 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked. In wake of the discussion made hereinabove, we are of the firm view that the impugned order dated 13.01.2022 passed by the learned Single Bench overturning the decision of the respondents-appellants to cancel the license of the respondent and to blacklist it for two years for applying for future fishing contracts in terms of Rule 6(3) of the Rules of 1958 is arbitrary and unsustainable in the eyes of law. 10. Hence, the impugned order dated 13.01.2022 passed by the learned Single Bench in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14463/2021 is reversed. The appeal is allowed in these terms. No order as to costs.