ORDER R. S. Garg, J. - The contractor at whose instance the reference was made under Section 7 of the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983, being aggrieved by the award, dated 28-5-1990, passed in reference case No. 62 of 1989, by the M.P. Arbitration Tribunal, Bhopal, has filed this revision for awarding and grant of the rejected claim. His revision has been registered as Civil Revision No. 520 of 1990. On the other hand, the State, being aggrieved by a part of the award granting certain reliefs to the contractor, has field Civil Revision No. 444 of 1990. As both the revisions arise out of the same proceedings and award, a common judgment is being delivered disposing both the revisions. 2. Works contract No. 25/DL of 87/88 was entered into between the parties, which was a percentage rate works contract. Tenders in form A were floated on 7-8-1987 and were received on 8-9-1987. After accepting the tender of the contractor, an agreement was entered into and the works order was issued on 16-3-1988. The period of completion was 12 months, including rainy season. As the works order was issued on 16-3-1988, the stipulated date for completion of the work was 15-3-1989. 3. Under the agreement, the contractor was required to reconstruct a bridge in Km. 56 1/2 B, widen from single lane to two lanes in between Km. 561/2 and 561/4, the improvement of geomatrics in Km. 561/4, including construction of diversion road along with H.P. culverts. The sum of contract at 6.96% below bridge C.S.R. is in force from 26-1-1983 and road C.S.R. on the National Highway, Jabalpur, in force from 1-6-1983, both amendment upto-date of issue of N.I.T. was Rs. 13,56,523/-. 4. The contractor submitted that without finalising the designs, drawings and estimates, the respondents invited the tenders and issued the wouks order. In absence of these the work at H.L. Bridge at Km. 56 1/2 could not proceed properly. The lay outs of the whole work site could not be finalised upto 15-9-1988. In absence of proper designs, drawings and estimates, the whole working period before the start of the rainy season was lost. It was alleged that the lay out of the bridge was not completed by the respondents, though the contractor had made all arrangements to go ahead with the work and pressed head the respondents to get the lay outs. In absence of proper designs, drawings and estimates, the whole working period before the start of the rainy season was lost. It was alleged that the lay out of the bridge was not completed by the respondents, though the contractor had made all arrangements to go ahead with the work and pressed head the respondents to get the lay outs. The Executive Engineer, by his notice dated 30-9-1988 Ex. P-5, asked the contractor to give satisfactorry progress, failing the penal provisions of the agreement were to be enforced against him. According to the contractor, it could not be done in the absence of finalisation and want of lay outs. Because of the death of the grandmother and material uncle, the contractor could not attend the site during November, 1988, nor could give reply to show cause notice (Ex. P-8) dated 22-11-1988. The respondent rescinded the contract, but according to the contractor, the order of rescission was never communicated to him. He made a representation to the Superintending Engineer, the Chief Engineer, the Engineer-in-Chief and the concerned Minister to recall the illegal termination order and to permit him to complete the work. He submitted his quantified claim under Clause 29 of the agreement before the Superintending Engineer but the Superintending Engineer did not give any decision. Under these circumstances, according to the contractor, he was constrained to file the reference before the Arbitration Tribunal. The contractor claimed Rs. 1,30,353/- as loss of profit, Rs. 32,500/- as value of the metal sand collected at the site. Rs. 25,000/- towards final payment and Rs. 32,335/- as refund of earned money, and cash security deducted from the first running bill. In all, Rs. 2,00,187/- are claimed by the contractor. The respondent State denied the materia allegations of the contractor and, inter alia, pleaded that the tender was floated only after the finalisation of the designs, drawings and estimates. Lay outs were given to the contractor on 25-3-1988 but the contractor did not proceed with the work, nor gave any proportionate progress. The contractor did not complete the work within the stipulated period. He started the work just before the rainy season and did not resume work even after the rainy season was over. According to the respondent, no material was left or collected at the site. The contractor did not complete the work within the stipulated period. He started the work just before the rainy season and did not resume work even after the rainy season was over. According to the respondent, no material was left or collected at the site. Time for completion of the work was extended in November 1988, but till January 1989, there was no satisfactory progress. Therefore, the respondent-State suffered a loss of Rs. 4,00,000/-. The show cause notice issued by the State was not replied by the contractor. Therefore, left with no choice the respondent-State validly terminated the contract under Clauses 2 and 3(c) of the agreement. They prayed for dismissal of the reference petition with costs. 5. The Arbitration Tribunal recorded evidence of the parties and, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the contractor is entitled to Rs. 5,098/- as the balance amount of the final bill and Rs. 1,542/- deducted as security deposit of the first running bill. It also ordered that the respondent should release F.D.R. for Rs. 10,935/- lying with the respondent. Interest at 12 percent per annum from 6-7-1989 till realisation was awarded on the award amount of Rs. 6,640/- with costs. 6. The contractor being aggrieved by the rejection of the rest of the claim, and the respondent-State against the grant of part of the claim, have filed these revisions. We have heard both sides. 7. Counsel for the applicant-contractor submitted that the Tirbunal was wrong in rejecting the claim of the contractor. It was also contended that there was sufficient evidence on record to show that the respondent failed to give lay outs to the contractor and the work orders were issued before finalistion of the designs, drawings and estimates. Having gone through the statement of S. K. Behre (D.W. 3) duly supported by the statement of the Sub-Engineer, R. N. Agarwal (D.W. 1), we have no hesitation in holding that the witnesses had prepared the estimates and later on had also completed the revised estimates within two months of the receipt of revised designs, drawings and sanction of the State Government. It is clear from the evidence on record that the revised estimates were prepared before the order was issued. The fact is further corroborated from the recitals of the sanction order (Ex. D-10), dated 27-6-1987. It is clear from the evidence on record that the revised estimates were prepared before the order was issued. The fact is further corroborated from the recitals of the sanction order (Ex. D-10), dated 27-6-1987. The N.I.T. was floated on 7-8-1987 and the work order was issued on 16-3-1988. Therefore, it is clear that the lay outs, etc., were ready with the respondent-State. The statement of Anil Kumar Grover P.W. 1. does not inspire any confidence. His self serving statement is far from being true. Ipse dixit of the witness would serve no purpose. It is clear from his statement that he was making a wrong statement before the Tribunal. We fail to understand as to how the contractor could have started the work, without the lay outs being given to him. Excavation work which is shown to have been done in the measurement book, dismantling and other types of work were executed by the contractor, which, in the absence of lay outs, could not be carried out. The Tribunal was right in holding that the allegations of the petitioner that lay outs were not available with the respondent-State is not proved. The applicant has made claim for Rs. 25,000/- in respect of the final bill. The Tribunal has found that the total value of the work done by the applicant was to the tune of Rs. 36,108/- only. Out of the first running bill, the contractor was already paid Rs. 30,903/-, leaving a balance of Rs. 5,205/- only. Out of this balance Rs. 104/- have been deducted in respect of income-tax and Rs. 3/- have been deduction as cost of the bill form and the remaining amount of Rs. 5,098/- is shown to have been deducted as extra deposit-843 in recovery etc. and thereby leaving nothing to be paid to the applicant regarding the final bill. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 5,098/- as due to the applicant holding that it has been unnecessarily retained by the department under deposits in order to make future recoveries. We have also verified the fact from the measurement book. The measurement book shows that the contractor has done work to the tune of Rs. 36,108/- only, out of which Rs. 30,903/- was paid to him. The Tribunal was right in holding that the contractor was entitled to Rs. 5,098/- only in respect of his final bill. We have also verified the fact from the measurement book. The measurement book shows that the contractor has done work to the tune of Rs. 36,108/- only, out of which Rs. 30,903/- was paid to him. The Tribunal was right in holding that the contractor was entitled to Rs. 5,098/- only in respect of his final bill. The contention of the State Government is that the Tribunal was not justified in ordering payment of this amount to the contractor. Counsel for the State could not give any reason for retention of this amount. It was faintly argued that in order to make future recoveries, which were not finalised, the amount was rightly retained. The State would never be permitted to retain the amount of a contractor ad infinitum. There is nothing on record to show or suggest that any penalty was ever imposed on the contractor under Clause 2 of the agreement or any sum has since become due against the contractor. We confirm the finding and hold that the Tribunal was right in awarding Rs. 5,098/- to the contractor. 8. The second claim was for the recovery of Rs. 12,335/- being the sum of earnest money and cash security recovered from the contractor. As we have already held there are no penalty proceedings started or pending against the contractor. In case of abandonment of the work, the contractor is held to be entitled to the amount of Rs. 10,835/- which is lying in the form of fixed deposit receipt with the department and the sum of Rs. 1,542/-. There is no order passed by the respondent regarding forfeiture of the security amount and earnest money. From the record, we are satisfied that the State has pathetically failed to prove that they suffered any damage or loss. We therefore, hold that the Tribunal was right in holding that the contractor was entitled to refund of the F.D.R. and the security amount. 9. The third claim of the applicant is in relation to Rs. 32,500/- as cost of the material collected at the site by the contractor, which remained with the respondent after withdrawal of the work order. 10. The contractor Anil Kumar Grover (P.W. 1) could not prove before the court the actual quantity of sand and material which according to him, were left at the site. 32,500/- as cost of the material collected at the site by the contractor, which remained with the respondent after withdrawal of the work order. 10. The contractor Anil Kumar Grover (P.W. 1) could not prove before the court the actual quantity of sand and material which according to him, were left at the site. He even could not satisfy the court by proving the rates of the material at the material time. By Ex. P-14 and P-15, the applicant claimed that he had left material worth Rs. 1.5 lacs in April 1989, though just some time ago, he had made a claim of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the said account. Under Ex. P-11 dated 20-5-1989, for the first time, he quantified the material and claimed Rs. 32,500/- at different rates. The applicant for the reasons best known to him, did not produce his accounts and vouchers, though he had been regularly maintaining the accounts. The uncorroborated evidence of applicant does not meet the requirement of law. On the other hand, R. N. Agarwal (D.W. 1) has deposed that no material was left by the contractor at the site, when the charge was handed over to him. B. K. Yadav (D.W. 2) testified that in September 1988, when he had gone there, was no material found at the site. On this evidence and the facts, the Tribunal was right in holding that the contractor has failed to prove loss of material. His claim for the recovery of Rs. 32,500/- as cost of the material is rejected. 11. The contractor has made a claim for the recovery of Rs. 1,30,352/- as loss of profit at 10 percent of the contract sum of Rs. 13,56,523/-. It is clear from the record that in fact it was the contractor who committed the breach. The work was not withdrawn wrongfully from him by the respondent. The department had been persuading the contractor to go on with the work but under some pretext or the other and for reasons best known to him, the contractor was avoiding the work. The lay outs, drawings and designs were made available to him. The work was not withdrawn wrongfully from him by the respondent. The department had been persuading the contractor to go on with the work but under some pretext or the other and for reasons best known to him, the contractor was avoiding the work. The lay outs, drawings and designs were made available to him. If the contractor did not choose to go on with the work smoothly as per the instructions and directions of the officers of the department and without there being any cause or cancellation of the work, has abandoned the work, then certainly it cannot be held that the department is answerable to meet the claim under the head "loss of profit". The Tribunal was right in holding that the applicant is not entitled to claim loss of profit from the respondent, as there was no default on the part of the department. 12. In view of the above discussion, the revision filed by the contractor for enhancement of the claim and the revision filed by the State Government for rejection of the granted claim, are rejected. Accordingly, both the revisions are dismissed. However, looking to the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs.