ORDER D. K. Jain, J. - The respondents percentage rate tender @ 4.90% a bridge C.S.R. for the construction of High Level Bridge on River Lodhari in Km. No. 41/10 on Bagli Bhoresa road (Agreement Art. A) was accepted. The contractor was also awarded a contract for construction of another High Level bridge on Budhangaon Nalla at Km. 40/6 of the same road. But we are not concerned with that agreement as the claim relates only to agreement Article-A. After execution of the said agreement the budget meeting was held by the Engineer-in-Chief on 29-6-1986 at Ujjan and it was decided that on account of paucity of funds the work order for the said construction, if not, issued, was not to be issued and if issued was to be cancelled. Till then no work order was issued so there was no question of cancellation. The period of construction was 8 months. After the expiry of this period work order was issued vide Ex. P. 7 on 25-4-1987. The contractor refused to take up construction at the old rates. His offer for negotiation of rates in view of the escalation of prices in the meantime was not accepted by the department. In fact the contractor vide his letter dated 19-3-1987 (Ex. P. 6) had already submitted his claims under clause 4.3.29.1 of the agreement before the Superintending Engineer for damages on account of loss of profit and over head expenses. In the same latter the offer for negotiation of fresh rates was also included. Without taking any decision on the aforesaid decision the department issued work order on 25-4-1987 and rejected the contractor's claim for damages. The contractor then filed a reference claiming compensation of Rs. 1,02,153/- and interest @ 18% p.a. under Section 7 of the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (hereinafter the Act) before the M.P. Arbitration Tribunal, Bhapal (hereinafter tribunal). The tribunal vide order dated 13-7-1989 allowed contractor's claim on the head of loss of profit to the tune of Rs. 74,794/- with interest at the rate of Rs. 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the reference i.e., 26-9-1988. Earnest Money of Rs. 5,325/- kept in fixed deposit was also ordered to be refunded with full maturity value. Costs were also awarded to the contractor. 74,794/- with interest at the rate of Rs. 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the reference i.e., 26-9-1988. Earnest Money of Rs. 5,325/- kept in fixed deposit was also ordered to be refunded with full maturity value. Costs were also awarded to the contractor. The State challenges this award under Section 19 of the Act mainly on the ground that in view of Clause 14 of the Agreement the contractor was not entitled to any compensation whatsoever in this behalf. 2. In order to appreciate the arguments of learned Govt. Advocate in this behalf we propose to re-produce Clause 14 of the agreement : "Clause 14 : No claim to any payment or compensation for alteration in, or restriction of work. If at any time after the execution of the contract documents, the Engineer-in-Charge shall for any reason, whatsoever, require the whole or any part of the work as specified in the tender to be stopped for any period or shall not require the whole or part of the work to be carried out at all or to be carried out by the contractor he shall give notice in writing of the fact to the contractor who shall thereupon suspend or stop the work totally or partially as the case may be. In any such case, except as provided hereunder, the contractor shall have no claim to payment or compensation, whatsoever no account of any profit or advantage, which he might have derived from the execution of the work in full, but which he did not so derive in consequence of the full amount of the work not having been carried out, or on account of any loss that he may be put to, on account of materials purchased or agreed to be purchased or for unemployment of labour recruited by him. He shall not also have any claim for compensation by reason of any alterations having been made in the original specifications, drawings, designs and instructions which may involve any curtailment of the work as originally contemplated, where however, materials, have already been purchased or agreed to be purchased by the contractor he shall be paid for such materials at the rates determined by the Engineer-in-Charge provided they are not in excess of requirements and are of approved quality and/or shall be compensated for the loss, if any, that he may be put to, in respect of materials agreed to be purchased by him, the amount of such compensation to be determined by the Engineer-in-Charge whose decision shall be final. If the contractor suffers any loss on account of his having to pay labour charges during the period during which the stoppage of work has been ordered under the clause, the contractor shall, on application, be entitled to such compensation on account of labour charges as the Engineer-in-Charge whose decision shall be final, may consider reasonable. Provided that the contractor shall not be entitled to any compensation on account of labour charges, it in the opinion of the Engineer-in-Charge, the labour could have been employed by the contractor elsewhere for the whole or part of the period during which stoppage of work has been ordered as aforesaid. 3. Admittedly, under this clause at no point of time the officers of the State Communicated to the contractor that the State Govt. has taken decision not to go ahead with the work of construction under the said agreement on account of paucity of funds. The decision taken in the budget meeting at the level of Engineer-in-Chief was an unilateral act and in absence of its communication to the contractor the State is not entitled to invoke clause 14 of the agreement, as in the absence of such communication it has to be construed that there was never any stoppage of the work. In absence of such communication the contractor was justified in waiting for issue of work order within a reasonable time. Admittedly no work order was so issued and ultimately the work order was issued beyond stipulated period of contract. In absence of such communication the contractor was justified in waiting for issue of work order within a reasonable time. Admittedly no work order was so issued and ultimately the work order was issued beyond stipulated period of contract. In such circumstances the tribunal was right in holding that the State has committed breach of contract by not issuing the work order within a reasonable time from the execution of the agreement and much too belated work order Ex. P. 7 was not binding on the contract who had the option under Section 53 of the Indian Contract Act to avoid the contract which he ultimately did as his offer for negotiation of fresh rates was not accepted by the State. In view of this the tribunal rightly allowed the aforesaid compensation in the impugned award. 4. In result, this revision fails and is hereby dismissed. But, without any order as to costs.