SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.

1. Both these petitions impugn two separate orders dated 24.08.2016. The orders are identical in nature and seek to terminate the respective license deeds executed in favour of the petitioners. Since common questions of fact and law arise in these petitions, they have been taken up together for disposal.

2. The petitioners impugn the respective orders dated 24.08.2016 on the ground that they seek to cancel the license deeds executed in favour of the petitioners. The license deed in favour of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 8499/2016 is dated 05.01.2006 and the license deed in respect of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 8501/2016 is dated 20.12.2005.

3. The petitioners seek quashing of the action of the respondents in terminating the respective license deed prior to expiry of the period stipulated therein. Further restraint is sought against the respondents from proceeding further with tender dated 07.09.2016.

4. The petitioners were allotted license for carrying out business of displaying advertisements through Unipoles.

5. The licences were initially for a period of one year. The respective deeds stipulated that the licence could be extended for a further period of one year at a time.

6. It is the contention of the petitioners that the respective licence deeds were renewed from time to time. The last renewal, in respect of both the petitioners, was done on 24.09.2015 but for a period of two years. It is contended that since the licence deeds were extended for a period of two years, the same are valid till 20.08.2017.

7. It is contended that the petitioners have been performing their part of the obligations in terms of the licence deed.

8. By the respective impugned orders dated 24.08.2016 the licence deeds have been cancelled with effect from 30.09.2016. It is stated in the impugned letters dated 24.08.2016 that the respondents are receiving offers of amounts approximately double to the amount being paid by the petitioners. The petitioners, by the impugned letter, have been permitted to participate in the tendering process.

9. The contentions of the petitioners is that during the validity and subsistence of the extended period of licence i.e. till 20.08.2017, the respondents could not have terminated the licence and invited tender for the advertisement sites.

10. The respondents have filed counter affidavits objecting to the maintainability of the petition, inter-alia, on the ground that there is an arbitration clause in the licence deed and the petitioners in the first instance should invoke arbitration in terms of the said clause.

11. It is further contended that since it is a licence that was granted to the petitioner and licence by its very nature is terminable and the remedy, if at all, of the petitioner for wrongful termination would not be to seek injunction but to make a claim for damages.

12. It is further contended that the licence could have only been extended by a period of one year at a time and the extension of the licence by a period of two years on 24.09.2015 was itself contrary to the terms of the licence. It is further contended that the alleged extension of two years was not authorized as the minutes of the meeting in which the alleged extension took place were not signed and the appointment of Chairman who had allegedly chaired the meeting had not been notified.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision in the case of ‘Union of India & Ors. Vs. Tantia Construction Pvt. Ltd.’, (2011) 5, SCC 697 to contend that mere existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar. It is a rule of discretion and the court in an appropriate circumstances despite existence of an alternative remedy, may entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

14. Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 reads as under:

“14. Contracts not specifically enforceable. –

(1) The following contracts cannot be specifically enforced, namely:-

(a) a contract for the non-performance of