ORDER : G.R. MOOLCHANDANI, J. Defect nos. 2 and 3, pointed out by the Registry, are overruled and delay caused in filing the present application seeking leave to file appeal, is condoned and the application pertaining to grant of leave to file appeal is being decided on merits. 2. Heard learned counsel representing State on application preferred seeking leave to file appeal. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has contended that respondent Purshottam Lal acted in transgression to the PWD Manual and did not adhere Rules, while granting sanction for additional work, the kind of enterprise, which was permitted, is covered under the provisions of additional work, which is prescribed by para 33 of the PWD Manual, but respondent Chief Engineer, acting contrary to the stipulated rules, sanctioned additional work, which was undertaken by respondent no. 2, owner of firm M/s. Bharti Constructions, Banswara, and act of the respondent has caused fiscal detriment to the State and work approved was required to be sanctioned after issuance of independent tender for additional work, therefore, leave to appeal may be granted. 4. Having heard learned Public Prosecutor, I gave a thoughtful consideration to the facts and circumstances and perused the judgment impugned. 5. Examination of judgment impugend does not reveal alleged factum of fiscal detriment, which could have caused to the appellant State because a number of witnesses, who have been examined, have specifically denied that no such fiscal loss was caused. 6. PW6 Subhash Chandra Sharma, Executive Engineer (Construction Circle), Mahi Project, Banswara, has stated that nature of additional work, which was sanctioned, was akin to the principal work, therefore, it was approved and recommendation thereof were made and said recommendation was channelized through Senior Accountant and on approval of the same, it was sent to Chief Engineer vide endorsement ‘I’ to ‘J’, as mentioned in Exhibit-D3, this witness has further stated that “enhanced rate would have been quoted, if fresh tenders would have been floated for the additional work”. Contractor was prepared to perform additional work at the same rate, therefore, recommendation was made. 7. PW7 Badriprasad Dhaka, the then Financial Adviser, Department of Irrigation, has stated that according to the Schedule of Power, issued by Department of Irrigation, Chief Engineer was fully empowered for the said act. 8. Contractor was prepared to perform additional work at the same rate, therefore, recommendation was made. 7. PW7 Badriprasad Dhaka, the then Financial Adviser, Department of Irrigation, has stated that according to the Schedule of Power, issued by Department of Irrigation, Chief Engineer was fully empowered for the said act. 8. PW8 Anil Jain, Chief Accountant, Department of Irrigation, has also stated that Chief Engineer was fully empowered to approve additional items and Chief Engineer is empowered to sanction work upto Rs. 2 crore and has stated that Contractor had undertaken the work at old rates and had also not charged incidence of dearness and price escalation. 9. PW10 Gopichandiram Ashudani, the then Superintending Engineer, has stated that State had not suffered any financial loss on account of approval of additional work, the work was undertaken below the rate of BSR, Contractor was also not given benefit of escalation of the rates, he has categorically stated that Chief Engineer was fully empowered to approve and make payment for additional work, which was in consonance with Schedule of Power and no complaint was there with respect of quality of work undertaken. 10. PW11 Ganpatlal Chaubey, the then Police Inspector, ACB, has also stated that according to his investigation, the additional work was also of excavation, similar to the principal work and after investigation he could not arrive at a precise conclusion. 11. PW12 Diwakar Mahant, another Executive Engineer, has also stated that work-order for additional work, was in consonance and was executed as per due process and after superannuation of outgoing Chief Engineer, incoming new Chief Engineer had also found the additional work innocuous, so same was kept maintained and work was not withdrawn. 12. Evaluation of afore-discussed testimony goes to reveal that no fiscal detriment has occasioned and the said work-order for additional work was recommended and approved in conformity with the prescribed norms and consequent nature of work was similar kind of excavation, rather the said additional work-order and its approval did not cause any financial detriment or loss to the appellant State but conversely it benefited appellant State because the said work was undertaken below the rate of BSR, moreover at old prevailing rates, index of escalation was also ignored. 13. In view of the afore-discussed scenario, this court does not find any reason to grant leave to the appellant for agitating the issue afresh. 14. 13. In view of the afore-discussed scenario, this court does not find any reason to grant leave to the appellant for agitating the issue afresh. 14. Resultantly, application preferred for grant of leave is hereby rejected.