JUDGMENT R.K. Merathia, J.- This writ petition was filed against the order dated 30.4.2010 passed by respondent No. 3 cancelling the order .dated 24.7.2009 for supply of Vitamin A Syrup on the ground that the petitioner did not comply with the terms of supply within the specified time and caused delay due to which the scheme could not be implemented in time. 2. I.A. No. 2831 of 2010 has been for amendment of writ petition challenging the fresh Notice Inviting Tender (N.LT.) dated 21.7.2010 issued by the respondents for supply of Vitamin A Syrup. 3. Mr. Kalyan Roy, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was not at fault, rather the respondents were responsible for delay. 4. On the other hand, State Counsel submitted that the petitioner did not supply Vitamin A Syrup in terms of the tender/work order, within the time fixed and petitioner was responsible for the delay and frustrating the scheme under which Vitamin A Syrup was to be supplied. She further submitted that as respondents were facing problem due to delay in implementation of the scheme, they had to take part supply from the petitioner even with delay, but in view of the conduct of petitioner,' the respondents were justified in cancelling the order for the balance quantity of 42,790 bottles of Vitamin A Syrup. She also submitted that respondents are justified in issuing fresh N.LT. for supply of 62,200 bottles of Vitamin A Syrup. She further submitted that after the work order was cancelled, it was also found during the implementation of the programme that the wrappers of the bottles were also of substandard quality. 5. It appears that petitioner being successful tenderer was given work order on 24.7.2009 for supply of Vitamin A Syrup I.P. in 100 ml. Amber Colored Bottle with 1 ml./2 ml multidose dispenser within 15 days for oral administration under the campaign of "Jharkhand Matri Shishu Swasthya Evam Poshan Mah" in August, 2009, but the petitioner made supply on 14.8.2009, much beyond 15 days and that too without 1 ml./2 ml. dispenser. However, petitioner was directed to supply the said dispenser within 48 hours but the same was also supplied after a long delay on 3.9:2009. Then the syrup was got tested which was found to be of standard quality but the 1 ml./2 ml. dispenser were found to be of substandard quality. dispenser. However, petitioner was directed to supply the said dispenser within 48 hours but the same was also supplied after a long delay on 3.9:2009. Then the syrup was got tested which was found to be of standard quality but the 1 ml./2 ml. dispenser were found to be of substandard quality. However, petitioner was directed on 31.12.2009 to supply 45,000 bottles with standard dispenser which was supplied on 2.1.2010. 6. In these circumstances, the order for the balance 42,790 bottles was cancelled by the impugned order dated 30.4.2010 and thereafter a fresh N.I.T. was published for supply of 62,200 bottles. Thus it appears that petitioner was not only at fault for not supplying the Vitamin A Syrup within time, but was also guilty of supplying dispenser against the work order and then supplying substandard dispenser after a long delay, and thereby frustrating the scheme. Therefore, petitioner cannot take a ground that there was delay on the part of the respondents also in getting the sample tested. For the same reason, petitioner cannot claim that as the respondents accepted part supply even after delay, they are bound to accept balance supply and that they cannot re-tender for fresh supply. Moreover the dispute arises out of a non-statutory contract. The judgment relied by Mr. Roy (1980)1 SCC 599 , M/s Hindustan Sugar Mills vs. State of Rajasthan etc., is of no help to the petitioner. After examining the case, from different angle, I find, no merit in this writ petition which including I.A. No. 2831 of 2010 is dismissed. However no costs.