ORDER
Arun Mishra, J.
1. In this petition petitioner is assailing an action of M.P. Warehousing Corporation of not extending the period of petitioner’s contract for a period of six months and prayer has also been made to quash communication (P-11) dated 7.11.2005 treating the contract period to have commenced w.e.f. 11.11.2003, the date on which the work order was issued under the agreement dated 30.10.2003. Petitioner has prayed that contract period be treated of two years from the date of joining i.e. 3.2.2004. Extension of six months be grated till 2.8.2006 and proceedings pursuant to the NIT (P-18) dated 6.2.2006 be quashed, respondent No. 1 be restrained from terminating the contract for which time has been extended up to 10.3.2006.
2. Shri Kishore Shrivastava, learned Sr. counsel appearing with Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that in clause 9 of the agreement (P-1) no date was mentioned as such Managing Director was required to take a decision as to later date on which period of two years had commenced. He has further submitted that though the work order was issued on 11.11.2003, joining was submitted on 20.11.2003, the petitioner was allowed to join on 3.2.2004, thus the period of two years would come to an end on 1.2.2006. Thereafter petitioner was entitled for extension for a period of six months as per clause 9 of the agreement (P-1). Though three extensions were given for two months, one month and thereafter for one month as per orders (P-12), (P-13) and (P-14), last extended period has to come to an end on 10.3.2006. In the meanwhile the proceedings were commenced for fresh contract as per NIT (P-l7), hence this Court may direct the respondents to extend the contract taking the period to have commenced from 3.2.2004 and consequently to hold that the contract period came to an end on 2.2.2006 and thereafter petitioner is entitled for extension of six months, thus period which has been extended be treated to have commenced w.e.f. 2.2.2006 and petitioner has the right to work for the period for which contract has been extended.
3. Shri A.G. Dhande, learned Sr. counsel with Shri Saurabh Tiwari appearing for the respondents has submitted that no case for interference is made out. Even assuming that the period of two years had commenced w.e.f. date of work order, same came to an end on 10.11.2005, which was informed to the petitioner as per communication (P-11) dated 7.11.2005, thereafter two months’ period was extended as per order (P-12) dated 11.11.2005 till 10.1.2006, thereafter further extension was made as per communication (P-13) dated 6.1.2006 for a period of one month from 11.1.2006 to 10.2.2006 and the last third extension was made as per communication (P-14) dated 7.2.2006 from 11.2.2006 to 10.3.2006 in terms of clause 9 of the Agreement, thus extension of four months has already been granted, fresh NIT has been issued, tenders have been finalized and work order has been issued in favour of one Shri Arun Singh Chouhan. Petitioner cannot claim any right for extension of the contract for a period of six months. Ever as per the submission of the petitioner two years period has come to an end. The time was extended as considered fit by the respondents, thus no case for interference is made out.
4. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties in the opinion of this Court no case for interference is made out in this writ petition. It is not in dispute that even as per the submission made by the petitioner, the two years’ period had come to an end on 2.2.2006 and there was discretion to extend the contract for a period of six months beyond the initial period of two years but extension cannot be prayed as of right, it is discretionary for the Managing Director.
5. In the facts and circumstances of the case it is clear that contract shall as per clause 9 of the Agreement (P-1) was to remain in force for a period of two years, date was not mentioned in the agreement, hence date of work order has to be taken to be the date of commencement of the agreement. The date of issuance of work order was 11.11.2003, thus two years’ period had come to an end on 10.11 2005, which was rightly intimated to the petitioner as per communication (P-11), thus in case petitioner was not allowed joining for a period of two months for any reason, contract cannot be re-written. The date has been rightly fixed of commencement of the agreement as the date of issuance of work order. The interpretation put by the respondents is reasonable. In any view of the matter even as per the submission made by the petition the period of two years had conic to an end on 2,2.2006. Petitioner cannot claim any unlettered right to claim extension of the time. Whatever time could be extended by the respondents, has already been extended as per orders (P-12 to P-14). The initial period of two years had lapsed on 10.11.2005, On the basis of extension granted, it cannot be treated that petitioner has the right to work for a period beyond 10.3.2006 as there is no extension for the period beyond 10.3.2006. Communications (P-12 to P-14) cannot be construed to extend the period beyond the date i.e. 10.3.2006 specified in the last communication (P-14). When extension has been made till 10.3.2006, petitioner cannot claim that contract should be extended for any further period.
6. Thus I find no merit in this petition. Petition being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. No costs.