The petitioner had no legal or vested right for extension of the contract, and court interference in price fixation is only warranted in cases of mala fide and arbitrariness.

JUDGMENT

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. - This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeks mandamus to the respondents Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB) and its officers, to take back the decision of issuing fresh Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) for the parking site at N-Block, Raghubir Nagar Delhi, without deciding the request of the petitioner for extension of tenure of tender with respect to the said parking site earlier issued in favour of the petitioner and to extend the tenure of the tender earlier issued in favour of the petitioner, on the basis of principle of equity, with enhanced monthly licence fee by 20% as per contract entered into with the petitioner.

2. The petition came up before a Single Judge of this Court first on 19th March, 2020, when the same was ordered to be listed before the Division Bench. Vide order dated 20th March, 2020, notice of the petition as well as of the application for interim relief was directed to be issued and time of three days given for filing counter affidavit and thereafter for filing of rejoinder. The petition though directed to be listed on 27th March, 2020, was adjourned owing to the working of the Courts being affected in the prevalent COVID-19 situation. The petitioner has filed CM No.11227/2020 for early hearing of the petition, contending that the auction of the subject parking site is scheduled on 22nd May, 2020 and considering that the offices of the Delhi Government have resumed working, is likely to be held and if the subject parking site is auctioned and allocated to another, the same will make the writ petition infructuous.

3. Considering the nature of the urgency, CM No.11227/2020 for early hearing is allowed and we have with consent heard the petition finally.

4. It is the case of the petitioner, (i) that in the auction held on 28th August, 2017 of the subject parking site, the bid of the petitioner being the highest, was accepted and the subject site allotted to the petitioner for a period of two years and five months i.e. up to 31st March, 2020; (ii) that as per the contract signed between the petitioner and the respondents, "the contract can be extended for further period of one year by the CEO, DUSIB, at his sole discretion with 20% enhancement, whose decision shall be final and binding upon the tenderer"; (iii) that the tenure of the tender so allotted to the petitioner was coming near conclusion and as there is a trend in respondent department that tenure of almost all tender for parking site has been extended for one year, therefore the petitioner vide letter dated 10th December, 2019 applied for extension of tenure for one year beyond 31st March, 2020; (iv) the respondents however did not even respond to the said request of the petitioner, inspite of reminders dated 20th February, 2020 and 21st February, 2020 of the petitioner; (v) the petitioner learnt that the respondents, without taking any decision on the request of the petitioner for extension of tenure of tender in his favour and without even responding to the request of the petitioner therefor, had decided to issue fresh NIT and fresh NIT for the said parking site, from 1st April, 2020 to 31st March, 2022 was issued on 28th February, 2020; (vi) the petitioner applied under Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 regarding the extension in parking sites granted by the respondents; (vii) in response to the RTI query aforesaid, the petitioner came to know that in almost all parking sites, the respondents were following a trend to extend the tenure of the tender for the parking site; (viii) the respondents being an instrumentality of the State are required to act in a fair, equal and just manner; (ix) the petitioner''s security deposit is already lying with the respondents and the petitioner is ready to enhance the monthly licence fee by 20%; and, (x) the petitioner has made the parking sites suitable for parking and has spent money and effort therein.

5. Though the petitioner in the