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 days, the appellant was unduly enriched which is totally alien to the concept of a ‘welfare state’ guaranteed under the Constitution 10of India. He submitted that the High Court has assessed and quantified the damages suffered by the respondent by applying a logical reasoning and granted equitable relief after balancing the equities and hence, this Court should be loath to interfere in the matter. 16. However, Mr. Khanna was not in a position to dispute the fact that the respondent did not challenge the conditions contained in Clause-8 of NIT before participating in the auction proceedings. It was also not disputed that the delay in issuance of the work order was purely attributable to the respondent who avoided complying with the conditions in Clause-8 of the auction notice and dragged the