JUDGMENT : Atthe outset learned Counsel for the State submitted that he has instructions toinform the Court that the State does not propose to file any further oradditional return. Partiesare heard on the question of admission. Thepetitioner was awarded a contract for construction of the canal, the period forcompletion was 21 months including rainy season and the work was to becompleted on 31-7-2008. Accordingto the petitioner, because of the defaults on the part of the respondents whichwere manifest under the terms, the work could not be commenced in time norcould be completed by the due date. The petitioner prayed for an extensionwhich was granted to him but as the delaying tactics were being adopted by theDepartment, the petitioner terminated the contract. However, almost after abouteight weeks of the said termination by the petitioner, the respondent ExecutiveEngineer rescinded the contract under Clause 4.3.3.1 of the terms of thecontract and directed forfeiture of the security and all other amounts whichwere deposited with the Department. Inthe petition it is submitted that unless the claims of the parties were decidedby the Competent Authority/Tribunal, the respondents had not right to forfeitthe security lying with the respondents. Placing reliance upon certainjudgments of this Court and the Supreme Court it was submitted that therespondents have no authority to become Judge in their own case and directforfeiture. Itis submitted that the matter was referred to the authority named in thecontract for resolution of their dispute but the said authority is sittingtight over the subject which is compelling thepetitioner now to go to the Arbitration Tribunal. It is lastly contended thattill the disputes are finally resolved, the respondents be restrained from encashing the fixed depositreceipts which are pledged with the respondents. Shri Kaurav , learned Counsel forthe respondents, on the other hand submitted that the judgments on whichreliance is being placed are such matters where without there being anyadjudication upon the claim of the respondent State, the State wanted to makerecovery from the contractor as revenue recovery. His submission is that therewould be a sharp distinction between proposal of recovery and forfeiture of thesecurity. It is submitted that under the terms of the contract if therespondents are entitled to forfeit the security deposited/lying with therespondent/Department then the said judgments would not apply. Undisputedly,under Clause 4.3.3.1 the respondents have a right to rescind the contract andforfeit the security deposited/lying with the respondents. It is submitted that under the terms of the contract if therespondents are entitled to forfeit the security deposited/lying with therespondent/Department then the said judgments would not apply. Undisputedly,under Clause 4.3.3.1 the respondents have a right to rescind the contract andforfeit the security deposited/lying with the respondents. Present is not acase where the respondents have decided and have observed that they havesuffered losses, therefore, they are entitled to recover money from thepetitioner. The question of recovery on basis of some disputed claims would bedifferent from forfeiture of the security lying with the respondent/Department.If the petitioner feels that the amount of the security is being wrongfully orillegally forfeited or misappropriated then he can lodge a claim before theAppropriate Tribunal for the losses suffered by him and even for recovery ofthe amount which is being forfeited by the respondents. Weare sure that in case the petitioner satisfies the Tribunal, the Tribunal wouldaward appropriate interest on such amount. We find no reason to interfere. Thepetition is dismissed.