A.K.MISHRA,J. - (1.)THE petitioner was granted a contract for construction of Rehti Distributory of Left Bank Main Canal of Kolar Project earth work in RD o to RD 7950 mtrs. (except reaches of masonry works). The amount of work put to tender was Rs. 2,60,000/ - and amount of contract was Rs. 4,34,000/ -. Stipulated period of contract was six months including rainy season. Contract was terminated on 15.6.84. It was submitted that the termination was wrongful and premature and amounted to breach of the contract on the part of the respondents. The S.E. vide letter dated 2.7.1984 extended the date up to 5.12.1984. This letter reached the petitioner on 19.7.1984. By that time petitioner met with a serious accident involving head injury and was hospitalised for treatment. He suffered from memory lapses and head injury syndrome. He had no consciousness to accept the extension nor was he in a position to understand things or give instructions. He continued to suffer till 25.10.1985 and as such he could not even communicate acceptance of this fresh offer to grant extension. Thus one sided extension had no meaning and could not come into effect. The claim of the petitioner is for Rs. 55,243/ - regarding compensation of loss due to infructuous over head expenses and loss of profit. He further claimed a sum of Rs. 16,136/ - regarding idling of labour and further sum of Rs. 11,406/ - about payment of final bill. A refund of Rs. 31,961/ - as security was also claimed, besides encashment of bank guarantees for earnest money and mobilization advance. Interest pendente lite on the amount claimed and a further direction that respondent No.3 has no right of recovery of Rs. 2,50,830/ - on account of illegal, unjust and arbitrary action under Clause 45 (GC -3) were also prayed. The respondents in their reply denied the allegation and contended that the petitioner executed the contract agreement on 5.8.83, but remained careless and disinterested for about two months. Even the extension was granted, but, work was not started 19.3.1986 and the work was abandoned in end of March 85. The petitioner failed to show progress of his work. The executive Engineer had to issue termination order of the contract vide memo dated 31.1.1985, but on the request of the petitioner the same was kept in abeyance till further orders vide letter dt. 26.2.1985 and he was directed to complete the work. The petitioner again failed to make any satisfactory progress and therefore, the Executive Engineer had to terminate his contract finally vide memo dated 8.7.1985. He again applied for extension of time on 27.11.1984, 26.2.1985 and 20.3.1985 and he did some nominal work in March 85. The petitioner could do only 26635 cum. work in place of the contract work of 88000 cum. in all the reaches given to him during the total period of 17 months while the stipulated period contract was 6 months. The claims made by the petitioner were denied. The petitioner's claim for Rs. 1,19,000/ - was denied.
It was also contended that the petitioner valued his claim for Rs. 1,20,000/ -. He has valued his claim for injunction at Rs. 1,000/ - which is not proper and is arbitrary. The petitioner should have valued his claim for total amount, which are being sought to be adjudicated by the Tribunal, i.e. challenge to the recovery of Rs. 2,50,330/ - and avoiding liquidated damages of Rs. 43,380/ - of 10% of the contract amount of Rs. 4.33,830/ -, in addition to the value of the claim of Rs. 1,19,000/ -.

(2.)THE Tribunal has come to the finding on consideration of various documentary evidence, the material available on record, that the land was acquired by the department on the basis of written consent of the concerned cultivators and the site was available to be given to the contractor. The contractor was not having sufficient strength of labour and resources to carry out the work properly and therefore he himself was taking layout of small patches according to his own convenience. The department has extended full co -operation to the petitioner, hence, the department was right in terminating the contract. The petitioner has not even completed 1/3rd work till termination of his contract. The termination of the contract is legal and there is no defaults or delays attributable to the department. Thus, the Tribunal in view of the finding recorded disallowed the compensation of loss due to infructuous over head expenses and loss of profit. Claims of idling of labour, regarding payment of final bill and refund of security deposits and encashed bank guarantee for earnest money and mobilization advance, claim No. 3 and 4 were also disallowed. As per article D of clause 45 of agreement, the termination of the contract either in whole or in part shall be adequate authority for the Engineer -in -charge to demand discharge of the obligation from the guarantors of the security for performance. In clause 45 of the agreement (Art. D), it is mentioned that in case entire contract is terminated the amount of security deposit together with the value of the work done, but, not paid for shall stand forfeited to the government. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled for refund of security deposit as per the said condition of the contract and encashment of bank guarantee is also authorized as per clause 45. The bank guarantee was for earnest money and for mobilization. Similarly, claim No.5 i.e interest as per schedule E has also been disallowed as the petitioner has not been found fit for the amount claimed and the claim of the petitioner regarding challenge to the right of recovery by respondent of Rs. 2,50,830/ - and for avoiding liquidated damages of Rs. 43,380/ - of 10% of the contract amount of Rs. 4,33,800/ - has been refused by the Tribunal on the ground that the respondents have not preferred any counter claim in that regard and the petitioner has not paid advalorem court fee on the amount of Rs. 2,50,830/ -, hence, the prayer has been rejected.
(3.)LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the claim with respect to the recovery of Rs. 2,50,830/ - ought to have been examined by the Tribunal. He has also submitted that there was no delay on the part of the petitioner.
We are of the opinion that there is no merit in the revision petition. Since the petitioner has not paid the court -fee on the amount of Rs. 2,50,830/ - before the Tribunal, the value of his claim was Rs. 1,20,000/ -, thus the Tribunal cannot be said to have committed error in not examining the validity of the claim. There was no counter claim made by the respondents for liquidated damages. Thus, there was no properly constituted claim before the Tribunal on that count. With respect to delay evidence is writ large and finding is purely a finding of fact. Tribunal has considered the aspect of delay from para 15 to 21 of the order elaborately. We find no infirmity in the reasoning. There is no jurisdictional error or substantial error of procedure in arriving at finding resulting in failure of justice, pointed out by the petitioner. We find on facts that extensions were granted, but, even after the extensions only 1/3rd work could be completed. Thus, there was gross delay on the part of the petitioner.