The short grievance of the petitioner is as to non-

consideration of his representation wherein he has sought

for extension of contract period in respect of fishing rights

leases.

Learned AGA on request accepts notice and

opposes the petition contending that Courts cannot rewrite

the contract between the parties, whether they are

Governmental Agencies or otherwise. In support of his

contention he banks upon the decision of Apex Court in

UNION TERRITORY OF PONDICHERRY Vs. P.V. SURESH,

1994 2 SCC 70. so contending, he seeks dismissal of the

writ petition.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

and having perused the petition papers, this Court notes

that on distress grounds, at times Government has shown

3

leniency in extending the period of contracts of the kind. In

that

connection

petitioner

has

already

made

a

representation which merits consideration at the hands of

answering respondents. This having not been done, the

petitioner is more than justified in knocking at the doors of

Writ Court.

There is also force in the contentions of learned

AGA that Courts cannot rewrite a contract between the

parties and therefore, cannot renew the contracts that have

come to an end by efflux of time. The Hon9ble Delhi High

Court in M/S NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY Vs.

PROGRESSIVE

CONSTRUCTIONS

LTD.,

in

FAO

No.

242/2015 at para 29 has observed as under:

< & In Makram Barsoum Estafanous and

London & Leeds Business Centres Limited

reported in 2011 EWCA Civ 1157, the Court of

Appeal held that the general approach to the

construction of documents was well settled. The

Court could not rewrite contracts in the context

of establishing what the parties had meant by

the language FAO(OS) No.242/2015 they had

used. To quote the Appeal Court "that case is not

a licence for the Courts to rewrite contracts." In

any circumstance, it is of the Government to

take a call in the matter.=

In the above circumstances, this petition is disposed

off directing respondent No.2 to consider petitioner's

4

representation within an outer limit of eight weeks and

inform result of such consideration to the petitioner as well.

All contentions are kept open.

Costs made easy.

Sd/-

JUDGE

DS