obtained cement from outside i.e. open market, the case against the contractor would have been set up for violating the terms of contract. Thus, if there has been a delay in making available cement for the purpose of construction on the part of the department, the department cannot turn around and impose penalty on the contractor. Similarly, it is seen that appellants have also admitted of having caused delay in providing instructions regarding the various constructions to be made. This delay at the part of the official cannot be allowed to be shifted on the contractor. Thus, learned court below has examined the provisions of clause 30 of the contract and reached to the conclusion that there has not been any deliberate delay on the part of contractor. Thus, the amount was wrongly withheld and this Court finds that the issue have rightly been decided in favour of the respondentplaintiff. It is noticed that the appellants themselves press for stay of decreetal amount and the amount was deposited as per the order dated 29.08.1990 in the bank account in the name of the plaintiff-respondent. In view of the suit having been decided in favour of the plaintiff and in this appeal the judgment having been upheld, the plaintiff is held entitled to get the amount from the Bank alongwith interest accruing thereto in terms of the decree awarded.
