the work on 08.12.1999. While dealing with point 2, on a consideration of the documentary evidence put in by both sides, it had been found that unprecedented rain, variance in soil, variation in the scope of work, variation in work order and other factors had caused delay. If IVRCL, by any act or omission on its part, was not responsible for the delay, which had occurred owing to causes beyond its control, it will be difficult to attribute to the contractor a failure to maintain the rate of progress of work. Further, the imposition of liquidated damages should be on a weekly basis for every week the work had remained unfinished. There is no material to show either the number of weeks during which the work had remained unfinished or even the unfinished state of work during those weeks. Even under Ex.C-6 dated 22.09.1999, CMWSSB had been informed of the problems affecting the progress of work not attributable to IVRCL and that even so, it had completed 90% of the work. Likewise, under Ex.C-7 also, difficulties experienced by IVRCL have been pointed out on account of the arising of situations for which it was not responsible and which had hampered the progress of work. The other correspondence that was exchanged and discussed while determining point No.2 would show that the delay had not occurred on account of any act or omission on the part of IVRCL in the course of the execution of the work. That correspondence would also establish that there was delay in commissioning for want of water etc., for which again IVRCL cannot be held responsible. However, under Ex.C-20 dated 10.12.1999, CMWSSB while extending the period upto 15.01.2000, levied liquidated damages without considering the need to fulfil the requirements of clause 45. Indeed, the evidence on behalf of
