Judgment 1. This Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court Rules, is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 19.10.2005, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 5629 of 2004. 2. The only short question, which has emerged for consideration and adjudication, is as to whether direction of the learned Single Judge with regard to refund with interest at the rate of 6 per cent, of the amount of Rs. 50,000.00 as earnest money deposited by the respondent company-original writ petitioner, is justified or not? 3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also examined the facts and circumstances emerging from the records of the present case, as well as, the text and tenure of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge, in light of the relevant proposition of law applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 4. A tender came to be floated in connection with construction of a Broad-gauge railway line from Koderma to Ranchi. The respondent-original writ petitioner submitted his tender for allotment of the said work on 4.7.2002. The respondent received the letter of acceptance on 28.7.2003. Thereafter respondent was served with seven days notice in accordance with clause 62 of General Condition of Contract (G.C.C.) and ultimately he was served with a termination letter dated 3.4.2004, in terms of clause 62 of the G.C.C. This is the reason why the writ petition came to be filed for quashing of the impugned order of termination and refund of the earnest money. 5. The appellants, inter alia, contended that the respondent-original writ petitioner had not commenced the work inspite of the fair chance given to him, and therefore, there was no option for the appellants but to terminate the contract. 6. Upon hearing the parties and considering the facts and circumstances, the learned Single Judge was pleased to direct that the amount of earnest money i.e. Rs. 50,000.00 should be refunded with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of deposit till the date of refund within a period of two months, finding that there was no fault on the part of the contractor/original writ petitioner-respondent. 7. 50,000.00 should be refunded with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of deposit till the date of refund within a period of two months, finding that there was no fault on the part of the contractor/original writ petitioner-respondent. 7. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and considered the facts and circumstances emerging from the records of the present case, as well as, the relevant provisions pertaining to the breach of contract and refund of the amount of earnest money. One thing is certain. There has been no delay on the part of the contractor-writ petitioner respondent herein. Thus, there was no default on his part. On the contrary, the appellants-railway could not provide the site. Therefore, extension was sought by the appellants and the contractor-respondent agreed to extend the period of contract for completion of the work. 8. There is no dispute about the fact that there was a request for extension of time from the appellant. Now, when a person is not defaulter, then how his contract can be terminated and, earnest money be forfeited? It is in these context, the learned Single Judge rightly held that the impugned order of termination of contract dated 3.4.2004, which was placed as Annexure-7 to the writ petition, is unjust and unreasonable and was further pleased to pass the order that the amount of earnest money i.e. Rs. 50,000.00 along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent from the date of deposit till the date of refund should be paid. 9. We find that this view, which is reached by the learned Single Judge, is upon the reasons assigned in the impugned order, and it requires no interference, as nothing has been brought out which could fault the impugned order. We do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. 10. Accordingly, this appeal shall stand dismissed. No costs.