1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order dated 27.10.2011, declining the request of petitioner for renewal of the agreement No.09/2010-11 entered into between the parties Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Limited and the petitioner with regard to issuance of license for display of advertisements on the rear side panel board of 675 buses (Group-II).

2. The petitioner was awarded a contract by the respondent for display of advertisements on the rear side panel board of 675 buses in Chennai. According to the petitioner, the contract was for a period of 33 months, divided into three periods of 11 months each with an escalation in the license fee for each of the 11 months. It was stipulated that the renewal was to be opted at least before the date of expiry of the existing period.

3. The clause, dealing with stipulation of renewal in the agreement, executed between the parties, reads as under:

"16. Extension of Licence Period:

i. Licence period shall be initially for 11 months only.

ii. The licence is renewable every 11 + 11 months (2 spells only) at the sole discretion of MTC, subject to the following conditions:

a) Satisfactory performance by Licensee during the previous agreement period.

b) Prompt, punctual and regular payment of licence fee and other charges on the relevant due dates, by the Licensee.

iii. However such renewal of agreement is restricted to 2 spells (11 months each) (i.e.) two renewals only after the initial agreement period of 11 months.

iv. The agreement for the renewal of the Licence shall be executed at least 60 days before the date of expiry of the existing agreement period."

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner, having applied with the terms of agreement with regard to security deposit, licence fee, service tax and advertisement tax etc and having opted well in advance, is entitled to renewal of license, therefore, the impugned order, being on the face of it is arbitrary, cannot be sustained.

5. On the question with regard to maintainability of the writ petiion for enforcement of contractual obligation, by invoking the writ jurisdiction, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of AluminiumIndustries Ltd, Madras vs. Minerals & Metals Trading Corporation of India Ltd and two others, 1997 (II) CTC 636, wherein the Honble Supreme Court was pleaded to lay down that the writ petition for enforcement of contractual obligation where on party to such contract is State or other authority satisfying definition of State, is ordinarility not maintainable to enforce the terms of the contract or claim damages arising out of concluded contact for breach, but the writ petition can be invoked and power of judicial review can be exercised in extraordinary cases to decide validity of actions of State in contractual matters.

6. This judgment goes against the stand of the petitioner, as the petitioner, by way of present writ petition, is seeking enforcement of the terms of the contract for renewal of the license.

7. Reliance was thereafter placed by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of HarbanslalSahnia and another vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd and others, 2003 (1) CTC 189, wherein the Honble Supreme Court was pleased to hold that rule of exclusion of jurisdiction by availability of alternate remedy is Rule of discretion and not one of compulsion. The High Court can exercise writ jurisdiction in spite of availability of alternate remedy in at least three contingencies,

i. where writ petition seeks enforcement of any fundamental right,

ii. where there is failure of principles of natural justice,

iii. where orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or vires of Act is challenged.

8. Reliance on this judgment is totally misplaced, as the questio