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 that admittedly, the auction notice was issued for one year, but despite that the respondent was not allowed to work for the entire period of 365 days in terms of NIT. For the shortfall of 33 days during which the respondent-writ petitioner was not allowed to work, the appellants themselves operated the work and thus, it can be presumed that they must have made profits out of the same. He urged that the respondent-writ petitioner was made to deposit the entire amount under the contract for the full period of 365 days in terms of the NIT. The appellant Municipal Committee operated the work and earned income for this period of 33 days and also charged the respondent- writ petitioner for the same period. By failing to pay to the respondent-writ petitioner the earnings for the period of these 33