JUDGMENT : 1. By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. Petitioner was the successful tender and he was awarded the tender amounting to Rs.1,97,46,642/- vide proceedings of Chairman of Commissionerate of Tenders, Highways Department and was awarded a contract for construction of Bridge at Km 67/2 of Thoppur – Mettur – Bhavani – Erode Road for which, Articles of Agreement dated 10.01.2011 was entered into between the first respondent and the petitioner. 3. According to the petitioner, on account of belated handing over of the site after 10 months, non-removal of encroachments around the subject site by the department, due to non-availability of 32 mm full length rods in the open market and due to scarcity of sand the work could not be completed on time. The petitioner has also made request seeking for extension of time and it was not acceded to. Ultimately, the contract awarded to him was cancelled vide impugned proceedings dated 24.10.2013 by the second respondent and challenging the legality of the same, W.P.No.30187 of 2013 was filed and final order was passed on 10.01.2014. Subsequently, the second respondent vide proceedings dated 28.03.2014 informed him that a sum of Rs.5,88,440/-, which is equal to 10% of the value of the remaining work would be recovered and challenging the same, once again he filed W.P.No.13496 of 2014. In the interregnum, fresh tender notice came to be issued and it was also put to challenge in W.P.No.19905 of 2014 and interim order passed to that effect that the award and finalisation of the tender is subject to the result of the writ petition and it was put to challenge in W.A.No.1203 of 2014 and it was dismissed and S.L.P.No.27689 of 2014 challenging the said judgment was also dismissed. 4. The grievance expressed by the petitioner is that the amount sought to be recovered was originally fixed at Rs.17,75,587/- and it was suddenly enhanced to Rs.33,58,882/- vide impugned proceedings dated 11.03.2015 and without giving any calculation or whatsoever, the amount was arrived at and sought to be recovered. 5. Mr. R. Neelakandan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that since the difference of amount sought for to be recovered is very much, the second respondent is under obligation to furnish memo of calculation, but having failed to do so, the amount does not be recovered and prayed for appropriate orders. 6. 5. Mr. R. Neelakandan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that since the difference of amount sought for to be recovered is very much, the second respondent is under obligation to furnish memo of calculation, but having failed to do so, the amount does not be recovered and prayed for appropriate orders. 6. Per contra, Mr. S. Pattabiraman, learned Government Advocate who accepted notice for the respondents would submit that the second respondent taking into consideration all the relevant aspects rightly fixed the quantum at Rs.33,58,882/- and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. This Court carefully considered the rival submissions and materials placed on record. 8. Though the prayer is for quashing the impugned proceedings of the second respondent, this Court in the facts and circumstances is of the view that the petitioner is to be furnished with the calculation as to the sum of Rs.33,58,882/- within a stipulated time and on receipt of the same, petitioner may be given liberty to work out his remedy in accordance with law. 9. Hence, the second respondent is directed to give calculation as to the manner in which, a sum of Rs.33,58,882/- has been arrived at within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the petitioner on receipt of the same, is directed to give his response within a period of two weeks thereafter and work out his remedy in accordance with law. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.