appellants urged that admittedly, the respondent was 8responsible for non-issuance of the work order because he did not comply with the mandatory requirements contained in Clause-8 of NIT. Despite having participated in the auction proceedings with open eyes, the respondent pursuant to his second highest bid being accepted, challenged the conditions contained in Clause-8 of the NIT, by filing a civil suit. Owing to the reluctance shown by the respondent in accepting the tender conditions, the appellants herein were contemplating to quash the tender and to issue a fresh auction notice, but in compliance of the order dated 7th May, 2010, passed by the High Court, the work order dated 10th May, 2010 was awarded to the respondent. He submitted that there cannot be any dispute that the work under the contract was to run only till 31st March, 2011. The work was commenced by the respondent on 10th May, 2010 and the delay was due to his own conduct. He submitted that the High Court was not