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 justified in entertaining the claim laid by the respondent in the writ petition which primarily was filed seeking award of damages in exercise of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction. It was fervently contended that such a remedy could only have been availed by filing a suit for damages in the civil Court. His fervent contention was that the quantification of the amount, arrived at by the High Court to be awarded to the 9respondent by way of damages/compensation was not based on any logic or reasoning. He thus, implored the Court to accept the appeals and set aside the impugned judgments. 15. Per contra, Mr. Rakesh K. Khanna, learned senior counsel representing the respondent-writ petitioner, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellants’ counsel. He urged