( 1 ) THIS is a very ambitious writ petition by a person who had bagged some work contract from the Karnataka Electricity board way back in the year 1987 in terms of an order of acceptance dated 9-3-1987, accepting the quotation of the petitioner to execute a work known as Stringing Conductors 220 KV DC Transmission Naghjari-Ponda lane (Goa Portion), a work which was required to be completed within a period of three months thereafter,. e. before the end of June 1987, at 205% excess over the estimated cost of the project which was estimated by the board at Rs. 2,97,900/ -. The offer of the petitioner had worked out to a sum of Rs. 9,07. 985/- for the entire work and this had been accepted and the work entrusted to the petitioner. ( 2 ) HOWEVER, the respondents for whatever reasons later on issued instructions to the petitioner not to go ahead with the work and the petitioner never executed the work. In this context the petitioner put forth its claim for compensation to compensate it for the payment to the labour who were kept idle due to the petitioner being asked by the Board not to execute the work and the Assistant Executive engineer of the Board, purporting to act in terms of Clause 4 of the agreement, which reads as under: 4. In case the work is not complete in all respects within the above specified period, the board may cancel the contract either in full or partially and get the cancelled portion of the work executed at its full discretion at the contractor's risk and extra cost involved in the form of labour, transportation, supervision etc. , shall be recovered from the contractor out of his bill/deposit/security etc. , or from the bills payable/deposit/security etc. , in other division. The decision of the Executive Engineer. Elecl. , Major Works, KEB, Hubli, is final and binding. and notwithstanding clause 7 of the very agreement, which reads as under : 7. The Board is not liable to pay any claims to the contractor towards idle labour, if any, which he may suffer for any reason whatsoever. proceeded to determine the compensation payable to the petitioner for idling his labour force to be at a sum of Rs. 14,99,486/- in terms of order dated 24-8-1992 (copy at Annexure-F ). The Board is not liable to pay any claims to the contractor towards idle labour, if any, which he may suffer for any reason whatsoever. proceeded to determine the compensation payable to the petitioner for idling his labour force to be at a sum of Rs. 14,99,486/- in terms of order dated 24-8-1992 (copy at Annexure-F ). ( 3 ) HOWEVER, it appears that the Board in exercise of its overall supervisory and management power and purporting to revise this order, reduced the compensation amount to rs. 2,75,750/ -. It is essentially aggrieved by such reduction, petitioner has approached this court, inter alia, contending that the reduction effected by the Board was without notice to the petitioner; that it is in gross violation of principles of natural justice; that the Board should not have acted unilaterally to the detriment of the petitioner, that such an order is not sustainable in law and the order passed by the Board deserves to be quashed and the matter be remanded to the Board for proper consideration etc. ( 4 ) SRI T. R. Subbana, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner has put forth several submissions to demonstrate the illegality of the impugned order passed by the board and has also relied upon a good number of authorities to drive home his points. ( 5 ) I have heard Sri N. K. Gupta, learned counsel for respondents. ( 6 ) BEFORE adverting to any submissions made at the Bar, I find that the present writ petition is not one which requires to be examined by this Court, either on merits or for examining any illegality on the part of the respondent-Board or any of its officers which can be said to be to the detriment of the petitioner. On the other hand, I find that the petitioner if at all is a beneficiary notwithstanding the order at Annexure-G. ( 7 ) I take this view for the reason that I notice that the value of the work which was entrusted to the petitioner for being carried out within a period of three months was estimated at Rs. 2,97,700/ -. May be the petitioner found this to be a low estimation and had given his quotation at 205% excess the estimated cost. 2,97,700/ -. May be the petitioner found this to be a low estimation and had given his quotation at 205% excess the estimated cost. It may also be a reason in favour of the petitioner that his quotation was the lowest, and therefore the work was entrusted to him. even though the quotation for the work was rs. 9,09,785/ -. That means if the petitioner should have completed the work in accordance with the contract and within stipulated time- frame, it could have received the said amount for labour force, material employed in the execution of work, towards its own margin of profit, that too if the work was completed to the satisfaction of the respondent-Board and nothing more. On the other hand, the petitioner was asked not to execute the work. It did not incur any cost towards materials, even assuming that the petitioner has incurred certain expenditure for work force, if at all it should have employed such force during this period, which would at any rate cannot go beyond the contract value of the work itself. ( 8 ) IT is really exasperating for one to understand as to how an employee of the Board arrive at a fabulous sum of Rs. 14,99,486/- to be the compensation payable to the petitioner towards the idling of its labour force. Even with the wildest imagination, no responsible person or reasonable person could have arrived at such a figure! Even if the petitioner should have approached the civil Court for damages for breach of contract, what he could have possibly sued can only be the profit margin of the value of the work which can range between 10 to 20% of the work value of the contract. e. even at the higher limit of 20% of Rs. 9,09. 775/-, which is less than Rs. 2. 00 lakh. In fact, as against such a possibility, what the petitioner without working anything or without incurring any expenditure gets in terms of the impugned order of the board was Rs. 2,75,750/-, which he has received without any demur and acknowledged in terms of Exs. R1 and 2, produced along with the statement of objections filed by the respondents. No wonder the petitioner received this amount without any demur, which in itself was a bonanza. 2,75,750/-, which he has received without any demur and acknowledged in terms of Exs. R1 and 2, produced along with the statement of objections filed by the respondents. No wonder the petitioner received this amount without any demur, which in itself was a bonanza. It is to test his luck further, the petitioner has approached this court in the present writ petition after testing and toying with other legal remedies. ( 9 ) I find that a matter of this nature is not worthy of examination in writ jurisdiction for the purpose of extending any relief to the petitioner, assuming that the Board has committed technical follies even be it in violation of the principles of natural justice or any other violation. Though a matter of this nature deserves to be dismissed with costs, the petition is dismissed without any order as to costs, having regard to the fervent plea by the learned counsel for the petitioner not to mulct the petitioner with costs. ( 10 ) BEFORE parting with this case, I must indicate my displeasure at the manner in which the employees of the Board function to the detriment of the interest of the Board. Sri N. K. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent- board is not in a position to place before the court as to what action had been taken against such erring employees, though he submits that certain disciplinary proceedings had been initiated, but instruction as to the outcome of the same is not forthcoming. ( 11 ) IF the Board has not concluded such action and had not taken to its logical conclusion, it is necessary to impress upon the respondents that they should not lose any further time to conclude the proceedings at the earliest and take appropriate action against such erring employees. If no action is initiated so far, it is high time to immediately take such action against the erring employees and pass suitable orders in this regard in accordance with law. Order accordingly.