WA 415/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE HN SARMA THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AC UPADHYAY Heard Mr. SS Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. DebNath, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The writ petitioner, being unsuccessful in WP ( C) No (SH) 28/10 (347/10), has again approached this court in its appellate jurisdiction to challenge the acti on of the respondent authorities for not considering the extension of the perio d of contract for running the pharmacy in question in the campus of North Easte rn Gandhi Regional Institute of Health and Medical Science( NEIGRIHMS) which was leased out to the writ petitioner in terms of the NIT dated 28.7.06 pursuant t o which an agreement was also executed on 24.1.07. The writ petitioner was awar ded the contract to run the pharmacy in the aforesaid campus by the respondent a uthorities and he became successful in the tender process initiated by issuance of the tender process dated 28.7.06. The contract was for the period from 24.1.0 7 to 23.1.10. The terms of the contract has been incorporated in the bilateral a greement executed on 24.1.07 between the parties. As per the terms of the contra ct, the period for running of the pharmacy initially was for a period of three y ears and renewable on mutual agreement/ negotiation on satisfactory performance and if required the NEIGRI H MS reserves the right to terminate the agreement a t any stage for any breach of the terms and conditions. In the NIT, however, th ere is further requirement that the extension of the lease would be on mutual agreement/negotiation on satisfactory performance which would be main criteria. Before completion of the terms of the lease, the respondent authorities decided to initiate a fresh tender from January, 2011 and such decision was taken on 6. 1.10 and subsequently NIT was published in the local news paper at Shillong in U n Nongsain Hima on 9.1.10 and in the Telegraph on 10.1.10. On 7.1.10 the petiti oner was intimated by the respondent authorities that the period of lease would expire on 23.1.10 and the institute has decided that the pharmacy in question w ould be re-tendered after expiry of the lease period. On receipt of the said com munication, the petitioner filed a representation on 11.1.10 indicating the grie vance and willingness to continue with the lease and prayed for extension of the same but the respondent authorities did not consider the prayer so made by the petitioner and went ahead with the tender process. Feeling aggrieved of such act ion of the respondent authorities for non consideration of the prayer for renewa l of the lease, the writ petitioner approached this court by filing writ petitio n which was, however, dismissed by the learned Single Bench vide impugned judgme nt and order dated 6.12.10 allowing the petitioner to run the pharmacy till the settlement of the same by the tender process to be undertaken by the respondent authorities. Further liberty was also given to the petitioner to participate in the tender process. It is submitted by Mr. R. DebNath, learned counsel appearing for the respondent authorities that in terms of the NIT so issued by the authority not a single ten der was submitted by any of the interested parties and accordingly the tender pr ocess has to be repeated. The contention of Mr. Dey is that the terms of the NIT as well as bilateral agre ement executed between the parties on 24.1.07 clearly disclose that the writ pet itioner has got a right to be considered for prayer for extension and without a llowing the petitioner to exercise that right the authority has taken the decisi on to re-tender the same for settlement of the contract which is in gross violat ion of the terms and conditions of the NIT as well as the agreement. Per contra , Mr. Deb Nath submits that in the matter of awarding contract by the authority like the respondent, the Central Vigilance Commission has issued certain guideli nes and as per that guidelines the contract is required to be awarded only by fl oating tender in terms of the Office order dated 23.7.07 issued by the Central V igilance Commission and accordingly, in the meantime, the authority has decided to go for re-tender for settlement of the pharmacy in question in the campus of North Eastern Indira Gandhi Regional Institute of Heal & Medical Science ( NEIGR IHMS). We have carefully considered the rival submission made by the learned counsel fo r the parties. From the tender notice dated 28.7.06 and the subsequent lease agreement dated 24 .1.07 there is no doubt about the fact that the contract in question was renewab le upon mutual agreement and satisfactory performance of the contract which was one of the consideration for such renewal. From the materials placed before us we are of the opinion that before resorting to such process of consideration fo r renewal of the lease in question, the respondent authorities decided to issue fresh tender. Of course, there might be valid reason for settling the pharmacy i n question by resorting to tender process but before resorting to such process, the relevant Clause of the contract as indicated above in the NIT dated 28.7.0 6 as well as Clause I of the mutual agreement dated 24.1.07 has to be complied with, which means that the prayer of the petitioner for extension of the lease is to be considered but that was not done in the instant case as indicated above . Since the subsequent NIT failed due to non submission of the tender paper by a ny of the interested parties, the respondent authorities is required to go for a fresh NIT. By various orders of this court, the petitioner is presently runn ing the pharmacy in question. In view of the above discussion, this writ appeal stands disposed of with the di rection that the respondent authorities, before settling the pharmacy in questio n by resorting to tender process, shall consider the prayer of the writ petition er for renewal of the lease in question. We make it clear that while giving dire ction to the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for renewal, it would be open for the respondent authorities to take appropriate de cision as it thinks fit for the purpose. The petitioner shall approach the respo ndent No. 1 on 3.2.11 with the prayer for renewal of his contract to run the ph armacy and upon such approach, the respondent No.1 shall consider his prayer for renewal as indicated above and after taking such decision the subsequent action as regards the leasing out of the pharmacy in question would be resorted to. Th e order so passed by the authority shall be communicated to the writ petitioner. Subject to above modification/alteration of the order passed by the learned Sin gle Judge, this writ appeal stands disposed of. A copy of this order be furnished to the learned counsel for the respondent.