Rajasthan & Anr.), where the licensee had sought renewal through the intervention of the Court, this Court had held that the issue of extension of the licence period was not a matter which could be treated as mandatory entailing a direction for extension and it was held that the issue of extension of licence period was a matter of discretion of the Chairman & Managing Director (apparently RTDC). It was held that it was not for the Court to substitute its discretion for that of Chairman & Managing Director of RTDC and direct him to extend the term of the licence granted to the petitioner in the said writ petition. It has been submitted that a legally correct view in a similar matter having already been taken by this Court with regard to the lack of sustainability of a writ seeking extension of licence period, this Court has no occasion to take a different view on the same issue and the writ petitions should therefore be dismissed in limine on this count alone. It has been then submitted that the right of renewal is not a vested or accrued right, but a licensee can only be entitled to the privilege of extension by the licensor, if the licensor in the fair exercise of its discretion is satisfied that in the obtaining facts and circumstances of a case, extension of licence is in its interest. It has been further submitted that aside of the extension of the licence period being a matter wholly within the discretion of the licensor, the petitioner No.1, Smt. Savitri Devi, is in breach of the conditions of licence agreement dated 29.03.2010 inasmuch as while she was allotted counter
