The court affirmed limited interference in contractual disputes under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is engaged in the field of advertising, and the grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the termination of the contract entered into between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent Corporation through the 4^th respondent, for displaying the advertisement using hoardings, LED boards, etc., in various depots of KSRTC bus stations in Pathanamthitta District. Ext.P1 is the agreement dated 01.07.2022 executed by the petitioner with the 4^th respondent. The tenure of the agreement as per in Ext.P1 was for one year commencing from 16.08.2022, which expired on 15.08.2023. Thereafter, the period was extended as per the agreements executed subsequently, with a tenure of one year each on every occasion of such extension.

2. As per the last agreement, the extension was granted up to

16.08.2025, but the said extension was cancelled by the 4th respondent, stating that such extension was granted to the petitioner without following the procedure in this regard. The petitioner challenged Ext.P9 by filing W.P.(C.) No. 4645 of 2025, and this Court passed Ext.P10 interim order on 05.02.2025, staying the operation of Ext.P9. On the strength of the same, the petitioner continued. Thereafter, the writ petition was disposed of as per Ext.P13, directing the petitioner to submit a representation highlighting his grievances before the Managing Director of the 1^st respondent, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said judgment, and a decision was directed to be taken, after giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. Now, in compliance with the said direction Ext.P17 order is passed, rejecting the claim of the petitioner, and this writ petition is submitted by the petitioner in such circumstances.

3. I have heard Sri. Suman Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri. P.C. Chacko, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

4. The basic dispute that is involved in this writ petition pertains to the right of the petitioner to continue the contract, which was originally entered into as per Ext.P1. However, on going through the terms and conditions in Ext.P1, the tenure was for the period from 16.08.2022 to 15.08.2023. Evidently, the said period was extended up to 16.08.2025. Even though there were certain disputes with regard to the last extension granted, which was up to 16.08.2025, this Court interfered with the cancellation of such extension by issuing Ext.P10, which enabled the petitioner to continue the activities based on the contract, for the tenure that was covered by the said extension. Therefore, it is not necessary to go into the legality of the order of cancellation of such extension.

5. The case of the petitioner is that, as per the terms and conditions of the NIT, the petitioner was entitled to get five years tenure for the contract. First of all, the said document is not before the Court. Even if that be so, Ext.P1 would indicate that the petitioner himself had agreed to a tenure of one year up to 15.08.2023, and thereafter, further extension of the said period was also granted by executing a subsequent agreement, as evidenced by Exts.P2 and P3. Both the said agreements were for an extension for one year each with 10% escalation. Thus, all the said contracts contract contained a specified term, which was agreed by the petitioner. Therefore, I am of the view that, even if it is assumed that, the terms and conditions of NIT contained a term of five years, that by itself would not enable the petitioner to claim the said right, beyond the tenure specified in Exts.P1, P2 and P3 contracts. At any rate, the s