SWATANTER KUMAR, J.

( 1 ) THE appellants are the legal heirs of Late Shri O. P. Sharma who had entered into a contract with the Delhi Development Authority for execution of the work i. e. construction of 900 SFS Houses at Sarita Vihar, Blocks F and G. The construction was to be executed as per specifications and in terms of the agreement bearing no. 27/ee/cpd-II/dda 85-86. In terms of the agreement, 18 blocks were to be constructed but after the award of the work, a letter was issued by the Delhi Development Authority (for short 'dda') on 29. 9. 1987 stating that as the site for remaining 4 blocks would be handed over to O. P. Sharma as and when the same is available. However, in August 1988 another letter was written by the DDA stating that the scope of the work for the remaining 4 blocks had been curtailed due to a stay order in respect of the land in question and the work would be restricted to 14 blocks only. The relevant portion of the said letter reads as under:-"therefore, I, G. R. Jain, E. E. /s. E. D.-1 for and on behalf of the DDA by way of this notice inform you under the Clause-13 of the Agreement ibid, that the scope of the work stands curtailed to 14 blocks completed. You shall, however, not be entitled for any claim or compensation on account of any profit or advantage which you might have derived from the execution of the work in full. "

( 2 ) THE above letter was replied to by the petitioner on 29. 8. 1988 , which reads as follows:-"in this regard, we would draw your kind attention to the fact that the aforesaid work was awarded to us vide your letter dated 26. 4. 85 with stipulated date of commencement 6. 5. 85 and stipulated date of completion being 5. 8. 1986. I had been executing the work with co-operative attitude inspite of the fact that there had been failure on the part of the Department in fulfilling its basis obligations. I had been assured all through that the site for the remaining 4 blocks will be handed over to me as soon as the same is handed over to the division by Land Department/dda. The last such confirmation/assurance in writing was conveyed to me vide Letter No. F3 (156) 87/sed. 1/dda/3471-73 dated 29. 9. 1987. Now as the position stands on date, there is no stay order on the land and so, reference to the same is without any meaning or substance. As regards clause 13 of the Agreement referred by you, the same is applicable under the circumstances when further execution of work beyond the particular stage is not required by the Department and is to be deleted altogether. To no stretch of imagination, Clause 13 can be applied in the manner as is being sought to be applied at you end and in not getting the work done from the agency to whom the contract has been awarded, though land/site is available with the Department. I, on my part, is agreeable to execute further work at the rates permissible in terms of the contract. The department is making an attempt to mis-apply the provisions of Clause 13 with a view to deprive me of my legitimate right which has accrued in terms of the contract. I believe, the Department shall appreciate the factual position and allow me to execute further work on the land where piling job is to be taken up by the Department recently. Summing up, I would state that the manner in which Clause 13 is being applied, is not justified and is uncontractual, as well. If the department chooses to mis-apply the same and proceed further as stated in the letter, I may make it clear that the Department shall make itself liable of consequences arising out of it. I believe, the Department shall consider the complete factual position in its true perspective and withdraw the aforesaid letter allowing me to execute further work on the rates as permissible in terms of the contract. This is without prejudice to any other right or remedy. "

( 3 ) IN the month of January 1989, the respondents had issued a notice inviting tenders bearing no. NIT 26/ee/scd-1/88-89/dda for the remaining 4 b