JUDGMENT 1. Heard on IA No. 797 of 2011 for condonation of delay in filing this review petition. As per office report, there is a delay of 84 days in filing this review petition. Looking to the facts of the case, the application is allowed and delay in filing this review petition is hereby condoned. 2. Also heard on admission. 3. This review petition has been filed for review of the order dated 25/10/2010 passed by this Court in WP No. 1401 of 2010. 4. This Court disposed of the aforesaid writ petition with the following directions: It has been put forth by Shri Nitin Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 that I.A. 16916 of 2010 has been filed by the respondent for taking a document on record and praying to dispose of this petition since it has rendered infructuous because the Chief Executive Officer has already passed final orders, which can be challenged in Arbitration Tribunal by the petitioner. However, Shri Solanki, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that till the decision by the Tribunal, no recovery can be imposed upon the petitioner. In this context, Full Bench decision of this Court in B.B. Verma and another vs. S.C. Batra and another, 2007 Arb. W.L.J. 733 (M.P.) has been placed reliance by the learned counsel for the petitioner. On bare perusal of the aforesaid decision of the Full Bench, we find much substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Hence, this petition is disposed of by giving direction to the petitioner that he is free to challenge the order passed by the Chief Executive Officer and in view of the decision of B.B. Verma (supra), no recovery be made till the award is passed by the Tribunal. This petition is accordingly disposed of. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has a right to encash the bank guarantee against its liquidated damages and in that event, Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of B.B. Verma and another Vs. S.C. Batra and another, 2007 Arb. W.L.J. 733 (MP) would not be applicable. In support of the contention, learned counsel relied upon another Full Bench decision of this Court in Maa Vindhyawasini Constructions Vs. MP Rural Road Development Authority, 2012 (3) MPLJ 437 . 6. S.C. Batra and another, 2007 Arb. W.L.J. 733 (MP) would not be applicable. In support of the contention, learned counsel relied upon another Full Bench decision of this Court in Maa Vindhyawasini Constructions Vs. MP Rural Road Development Authority, 2012 (3) MPLJ 437 . 6. We are in agreement with the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has a right to recover liquidated damages before adjudication of damages by the appropriate authority. However, in the present case, subsequently the matter was agitated before the Arbitration Tribunal, and as informed by the learned counsel the Tribunal is likely to pronounce its award since the case is closed for pronouncement of award. 7. In this view of the matter, in our opinion, it would not be just and proper to permit the petitioner to recover the liquidated damages. However, after pronouncement of the award, the petitioner is at liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with law. 8. This order has been passed on peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and it would not be treated as a precedent. 9. Review petition is disposed of accordingly. 10. No order as to costs.