of the Clause-8 of the NIT because the five post-dated cheques and bank guarantee to secure the payment of the rest of the auction amount were not deposited by him leading to non- issuance of the work order. The respondent questioned the legality of the Clause-8 by filing a suit in the Court of learned District Judge, Reasi. The learned Single Judge categorically held that it was the failure of the respondent-bidder, due to which the allotment letter enabling him to start performing under the contract from 1st April, 2010 was not issued, which later came to be issued on 10th May, 2010 in compliance of the order dated 7th May, 2010 passed by the High Court. However, in spite of taking note of this unjustified action of the respondent leading to the non- issuance of the work order, the learned Single Judge went on to hold that the writ petitioner(respondent herein) was not wrong in saying that he had worked 33 days less than the stipulated contract period of 365 days and thus, he was