Heard the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the respondents . 2. It is clear from the grounds raised in the review petition that on account of quashing of Exts. P8 and P10, the Government is not in a position to proceed further for recovery of damages from the contractor on the allegation that he is responsible for breach of contract. I have already held that the fact that there was breach of contract or not is a disputed fact, which could only be adjudicated by a civil court. Therefore, the question as to whether the contractor is responsible to pay any compensation or whether the contract can be terminated at the risk and cost is also a matter which requires to be adjudicated by a civil court. Only then the liability can be fixed.
3. The contractor has a case that he is not responsible for termination of contract.
4. Under such circumstances, I am of the view that even though the contractor has a case that termination is wrongful, there was no necessity to quash Exts. P8 and P10. The declaration that will suffice is only to indicate that the R.P. No. 928 of 2014 in W.P(C) No. 37300 of 2010 review petitioners will not be entitled to recover any amount on the basis of Exts. P8 and P10. They can approach the civil court for quantification of damages.
In the result, the review petition is allowed to the extent of deleting paragraph 21(iv) and substituting the same with the following sentence:
“It is declared that the respondents will be entitled to recover any amount pursuant to Exts. P8 and P10 only after adjudicating their rights and claiming compensation before a civil court. Any such suit shall be decided by the civil court untrammeled by any of the observations made in the judgment.”
Tds/ Sd/-
A.M. Shaffique, Judge.