Brief facts: 2. Briefly the facts as stated in the petition are that the respondent had floated RPF for procuring hand held communication equipments. The petitioner, a small scale unit covered under the provision of MSME Act, 2006, submitted its bid. Finding the bid of the petitioner technically sound and commercially acceptable, the respondent issued supply order no. WAC/S/3951/2/P4 dated 20.12.2016 for procurement of 1348 nos. of hand held communication equipments. As per clause 4 of the supply order, the petitioner was required to complete the delivery within 45 days after issue of the supply order. In terms of clause 2 (Part­VI) Special Conditions of supply order, the petitioner was required to furnish a performance guarantee in the form of bank guarantee for a sum equivalent to 10% of the value within 30 days of the receipt of the order, which the petitioner had submitted for Rs. 10,19,088/­ on 21.02.2017. 3. It is stated that the above equipment is a restricted item and its possession and use requires license / approval from WPC wing of Ministry of Communication. The supplier of this equipment also needs to maintain the compliance and cannot supply to any Government / Corporate / individual, who does not have the approval from the Ministry of Communication as per Wireless Telegraph Act. It is stated that in terms of the above provisions of law, the petitioner had asked the respondent to furnish the copy of the license / approval and requested the respondent for issue of ARBT No. 5797/18 Surya Telecom Pvt Ltd Vs. UOI & Ors Page No.2 of 32 frequency license detail but the respondent turned down its request vide letter dated 25.04.2017 saying that frequency license issued to IAF by WPC cannot be shared with civil agencies. It was advised to quote only the validity under which IAF was authorized to use the frequencies. It is stated that the authority to use the equipment by IAF in VHF range is mentioned as J­12012/600/97­WF dated 12.04.1999. 4. It is alleged that by the time, the petitioner received the clarification, the delivery period of the supply order had expired. The petitioner could not proceed further with the supplies unless the delivery period was extended by the respondent. It is stated that the petitioner sent several communications to the respondent for extending the delivery period but its request was turned down and it was thus prevented from fulfilling its part of contractual commitment for the reasons, which cannot be attributed to it as it never backed out from the contract. It is alleged that instead appreciating the genuine difficulties faced by the petitioner, the respondent vide letter no. WAC/S­3951/2/P4 dated 16.06.2017 cancelled the supply order mentioning that due to non supply of equipments, the bank guarantee has been forfeited. Respondent thereafter, issued a letter to the bank calling it to encash the bank guarantee and forward to it, which the bank complied. 5. It is alleged that under Article 299 of the Constitution of India, all the contracts made in the exercise of the executive power ARBT No. 5797/18 Surya Telecom Pvt Ltd Vs. UOI & Ors Page No.3 of 32 of the Union shall be expressed to be made by the President and all such contracts and all assurances of the property made in the exercise of that power shall be executed on behalf of the President of India and in such a manner as he may