RSA No. 3074 of 2009 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 3074 of 2009 Date of Decision: 20.8.2009 The State of Haryana and others ......Appellants Versus Wazir Singh (Contractor) .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Kulvir Narwal, Additional AG, Haryana, for the appellants. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). The defendants are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby suit for declaration challenging the forfeiture of performance security of Rs.1,17,200/-, was decreed. The plaintiff-respondent was granted contract for construction of change of alignment of Jind Distributory No. 7 for RD 4000 to 8360 and relinking at RD 23500 on existing alignment. It is the case of the defendants in the written statement that even if it was not possible for the department to make the entire site available to the contractor, the contractor should have arranged his working programme in terms of Clause 11 of the Conditions of Contract. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to the declaration sought for. RSA No. 3074 of 2009 (2) Both the Courts have found that not only the site was not made available, but even the drawings of `L' Section were not finalised and were in fact, changed thrice. Therefore, the defendants are not entitled to forfeiture of the performance security. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that even in the absence of handing over of the complete site, the plaintiff could have started the construction work and having failed to do so, the plaintiff is not entitled to the declaration sought for. It is not the case of the defendants that some site was made available on which the plaintiff could possibly start the work. In fact, not only the site was not made available, but even the drawings of the work were not finalized. In view of the said situation, forfeiture of the performance security is wholly unjustified and not sustainable in the eyes of law, as has been rightly found by the Courts below. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the finding recorded or that the finding recorded gives rise to any substantial question of law in the present second appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 20.8.2009 ds