Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. The application for modification in the Original case namely, CWJC No. 1423 of 1995(R) is taken up together for disposal as the matters are inter related. 2. The petitioner moved this Court in CWJC No. 1423 of 1995(R) praying for direction to the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 i.e. the Executive Engineer, Subarnarekha Canal Division, Jamshedpur and Executive Engineer, Halubani Subarnarekha Canal Division for return of the bank guarantees since no work was done during several last years. The petitioner was engaged as a Contractor with the respondents for excavation and bed lining of Chandil Canal and also the work of excavation of residual canal work. On the basis of the agreement, the works was to be completed within six months but it appears, for many reasons, it continued till 1990 and according to the petitioner, 80 per cent of the work was completed and running bill was submitted by it being Bill Nos. 1 to 57 and payments were also made on the basis of those bills. For the residual work also running bill No. 58 to 64 were submitted during the year 1990 and measurements were made, according to the petitioner, unilaterally by the Department and some payments were made out of those residual running bills. As the funds were not available, the petitioner moved the Chief Engineer to close down the contract and ultimately on 7.3.1995 the contract was closed by the Chief Engineer and the directions were made by the Executive Engineer as a result of which the petitioner submitted his final bill amounting to Rs. 4 crores and odd. 3. At the time of entering into the agreement of contract work, the petitioner had submitted bank guarantees amounting to several lacs and odd and although the work could not be continued due to shortage of fund, as per the direction of the Department, the petitioner had to renew his bank guarantee till December, 1994 incurring a heavy expenditure. When the petitioners bill had not been finalised and the Executive Engineer was pressing the petitioner to renew his bank guarantee again and again the petitioner moved this Court in the above writ petition which was disposed of after hearing the Govt. Counsel on 11.7.1995. When the petitioners bill had not been finalised and the Executive Engineer was pressing the petitioner to renew his bank guarantee again and again the petitioner moved this Court in the above writ petition which was disposed of after hearing the Govt. Counsel on 11.7.1995. The operating part of the Order runs as fallows: In the above circumstances and position of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with the consent of the parties by directing the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to finalise the final measurement and settlement of the claims of the measurement and settlement of the claims of the petitioner within one months next from the date of receipt of the copy of this Order. If no settlement is arrived the petitioner shall be at liberty to get back the bank guarantee money being released from the Department. In the meantime the petitioner may not be pressurised for further renew of the bank guarantee. 4. According to the petitioner the respondents deliberately did not abide by the orders of this Court rather the Opposite party No. 1, Mr. A.K. Mishra, Executive Engineer, Halubani had deliberately asked the bank authorities for renewal of the bank guarantee even after the receipt of the Order of this Court. Then the petitioner moved in this M.J.C. petition for drawal of contempt against Mr. A.K. Mishra, O.P. No. 1. 5. During the pendency of this contempt petition, Shri K. P. Sinha, Executive Engineer, Jamshedpur Divn. and Shri HP. Kar, Manager of Bank of Baroda were made as O.P. Nos. 2 & 3. So far as O.P. No. 3 is concerned, he filed his show cause starting that after getting the order of the Court he had already complied with the order of the Hon ble Court and released the amount of bank guarantee, but the Executive Engineers are not returning the original documents to them. 6. It must be mentioned that when this was brought to the notice of this Court then the O.P. No. 1 through his counsel, Mr. S.B. Gadodia gave an undertaking before this Court on 25.9.1995 that he is having chest pain and is on leave and on resuming of duty, he would be returning the bank guarantee, but the same has not yet been done. 7. S.B. Gadodia gave an undertaking before this Court on 25.9.1995 that he is having chest pain and is on leave and on resuming of duty, he would be returning the bank guarantee, but the same has not yet been done. 7. The contempt is related to a letter written by O.P. No. 1 on 15.7.1995 asking the bank to renew the bank guarantee of the petitioner, but the said letter was received by the bank on 19.7.1995. According to the O.P. No. 1 the letter was written earlier than the receipt of the Courts order dated 11.7.1995 and he went on leave by making over the said letter to the peon for delivery to the Bank and as he was on ailment and on leave, there was no scope for him to know the Orders of the Court and as such on bonafide and good faith, he wrote the letter to the Bank. But from the bank Managers affidavit, it could be found that the letter was made over to the bank authority on 19.7.1995 itself hand to hand. So, according to the petitioner, only back date was put by the O.P. No. 1 in the letter to get himself absolved from the liability of contempt of the Court and it appears that the O.P. No. 1 became ill at the relevant periods always to shirk his responsibility and liability. 8. On going through the show causes filed by the Opposite parties and the contentions made by the petitioner, it appears that the Executive Engineers and mainly the O.P. No. 1, Executive Engineer, Halubani was trying to avoid Courts order when he went to the extent of bringing allegations against the learned Government Advocates, who appeared for and on behalf of the respondents, to the effect that the consenting order was passed by this Court without having any instructions from him to the Govt. Advocate. It further appears that the Executive Engineer tried to retain the bank guarantee papers even after the Courts order on some plea or other. Petition was made in the original writ petition for extension of the time for finalisation of the bills but the same was not pressed and only after the M.J.C. case was filed then the same was pressed vehemently to get absolved from the liability of contempt. Petition was made in the original writ petition for extension of the time for finalisation of the bills but the same was not pressed and only after the M.J.C. case was filed then the same was pressed vehemently to get absolved from the liability of contempt. From the dated of the letter mentioned above, in technical sense, there may not be contempt of the Court but the intention and motive of the Executive Engineer becomes very well revealed from the way they tried to avoid this Court Orders. 9. It appears that final bill has been prepared to the detriment of the petitioner as the respondents have prepared the bills in such a way that the petitioner is now to give back a huge amount to the Department. The petitioner was raising from the very beginning regarding the final measurement to the effect that the measurement were made giving go-bye to all rules and norms as contained in the terms and conditions of the agreement and photographs were also placed before this Court to show that such measurement was not at all possible because of the silting of the Banks in the meantime as the measurement was not taken in time. The petitioners objection raised at the time final settlement have been turned down as is revealed from the various documents and affidavits filed in the case, Now, the prayer of the petitioner is that there should be a proper final measurement by keeping away the two Executive Engineers in such measurement when they have vindictive attitude against the petitioner. They have prayed that Supdt. Engineer of Jamshedpur Division and the other Supdt. Engineer may be asked to make final measurement keeping away the Executive Engineers from the scene. 10. The Supdt. Engineers are not party to this proceeding and there is no scope of such direction being given when final measurement has been made although, belatedly beyond the period fixed by this Court, but the fact remains that final measurement has been made but as there is definitely not good relationship between the Executive Engineers and the petitioner, there might be some truth that the final measurement were made intentionally to the detriment of the petitioner. In such circumstances, the petitioner is hereby directed to make a representation regarding the final measurement of the work in question to the respondent No. 2, Chief Engineer, Subamarekha Multi Purpose Project, Chandil Complex within 15 days next and on receipt of such representation, the Chief Engineer shall dispose of the same after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and also the Executive Engineers, who held those final measurements. The representation must be submitted alongwith a copy of this Order. 11. Mr. P.K. Sinha, appearing for the petitioner has strenuously argued that there would be multiplicity of the proceedings unless a finality can be done by an Order of this Court by directing fresh measurement, but there is. no scope of it in view of the order passed in the original writ petitioner. The petitioner shall be at liberty, if not satisfied with the finding of the respondent No. 2 while disposing of the representation to go for Arbitration proceedings as per the terms and conditions of the Agreement or to raise his grievance in appropriate forum. 12. Regarding the bank guarantee papers, it is really unfortunate that the Executive Engineers i.e. O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 are not returning the same to the bank, when the bank guarantee has already been released as per the order of this Court by the Bank of Baroda. O.P. No. 1 even gave an undertaking to this Court to return the bank, guarantee papers immediately. It is, therefore, asked to the O.P. Nos. 1and 2 to return the bank guarantee papers within seven days next from this date to the bank authorities, failing which the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 shall have to pay Rs. 5,000.00 each to the petitioner to compensate him and the said amounts should be realised from the O. P. Nos. 1 and 2 from their salary by the respondent No. 2, Chief Engineer. 13. With this observation and direction, this M.J.C. is disposed of and also this disposes of the matter of Modification of the Order passed on 11.7.1995 in CWJC No. 1423 of 1995(R).