years as sought to argued by the Respondent. Second , the extension for third year can be refused by the Respondent only if it concludes that the licensee had failed to ‘satisfactorily’ complete the first two years of the license. In the facts of this case, there is no allegation against the Petitioner with respect to non-satisfactory performance in the first two years. The letter dated 14th February, 2024, in fact, offers to extend the period of license until the new bidder is selected. Therefore, the satisfaction of performance in the first two years is admitted and is a matter of record. Third , as per Clause 30 of the Agreement the Respondent was entitled to call upon the Petitioner to implement the new policy of FASTag and digital payment facilities for separate categories of vehicles in its operations for the parking sites during the third year. The Petitioner has, in fact, represented to the Respondent that it remains ready and willing to migrate to the FASTag and digital payment facilities and implement the necessary changes for the same at the subject parking sites as well as fulfill the financial obligations [re: enhanced MLF] to be performed in pursuance to the new policy for converting the parking site into smart parking sites. The Respondent has not disputed the Petitioner’s ability to undertake the said migration. However, the Respondent without any justification has failed to call upon the Petitioner as per Clause 30 of the Agreement to migrate to the FASTag policy in the third year. Therefore, the justification offered by the Respondent in its letter of rejection dated 14th February 2024 that the extension for third year cannot be granted due to change in parking policy is contrary to the express terms of the Agreement. Fourth , since the agreed tenure of the license under the Tender and Agreement was for three years, the Respondent is wrong in
