8.The issue in this writ petition relates to Clause 41 of the tender notification dated 30.01.2003, extracted supra, shows as to whether the petitioner is justified in demanding payment of Rs.97,500/- during which no work was allotted to him, is correct or not. Though the pleading appears to be on the basis that there was a loss, the contention of the respondent is that if there is any loss as per Clause 41, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. This contention is correct provided the work was given to the petitioner on 01.04.2003. If the petitioner has carried out his work partially on 01.04.2003 and thereafter another contract for renovation was given and in that process, there was a loss to the petitioner, definitely the petitioner would not be entitled to any relief sought for in this writ petition. That is not the case here. Neither in the counter nor in the affidavit, it is stated that the work has been given to the petitioner on 01.04.2003. The admitted case of both the parties is that even though the petitioner was a successful tenderer, the work for which tender was given for collection of charges was handed over to the petitioner only on 10.08.2003. As the petitioner is allotted work only on 10.08.2003, no amount can be charged/collected from the petitioner for the period prior to 10.08.2003. If there is any loss after 10.08.2003 invoking Clause 41 will be perfectly justified. Hence, I find a prima facie case in favour of the petitioner. The amount of Rs.97,500/- for 72 days shall be refunded to the petitioner within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If the amount is not refunded within the time stipulated supra, the respondent shall pay interest at 12% p.a., from 01.04.2004 and the entire interest portion can be recovered from the personal funds of the respondent/Commissioner,Ramanathapuram Municipality, Ramanathapuram District.
