HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 25463 of 2025 Court No. - 39 HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J. HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J. 1. Sri Sanjai Srivastava, learned advocate, appears on behalf of petitioner, who is contractor and had executed the work. He submits, there has been made unilateral change in the contract by the employer. This is not permissible in law. 2. He draws attention to price schedule in the contract. It carries legend, reproduced below. "This BOQ template must not be modified/replaced by the bidder and the same should be uploaded after filling the relevant columns, else the bidder is liable to be rejected for this tender. Bidders are allowed to enter the Bidder Name and Values only." Pointing out from item no.15 in the Schedule he demonstrates that measurement is to be in terms of weight i.e. kg (kilogram). His client's claim on that basis stood rejected on order dated 16th May, 2025, in effect saying that the measurement was taken in cum (cubic metre) and indication of 'kg' was typographical error. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Annapurna Devi, Sanjai Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : Hari Narayan Singh M/S Callendra Builders Private Ltd And Another .....Petitioner(s) Food Corporation Of India And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) 3. He relies on judgement of the Supreme Court in Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. v. NHAI reported in (2019)15 SCC 131, paragraph 76. Unilateral addition or alteration of a contract can never be fastened upon an unwilling party nor can a party to an agreement be made liable to perform a bargain not entered into with the other party was what the Supreme Court said. The judgement was relied upon later, inter alia, in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Sri Ganesh reported in (2022) 4 SCC, 463. He seeks interference. 4. Mr. Hriday Narain Singh, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondents and relies upon paragraph-4 in the counter affidavit filed. He submits, petitioner had raised running and final bills, on measurements taken in cubic meter. After settlement and obtaining final payment, he raised subsequent claim based on measurements taken to be in 'kg'. Petitioner is not entitled to do so. He opposes the writ petition. 5. It is true that there can not be made unilateral change in a contract and thereupon thrust upon the unwilling party. It is also true that a contracting party cannot be compelled do something not bargained for. However, in this case petitioner's conduct may amount to waiver, acquiescence or principles analogous thereto. It will necessarily involve adjudication by a forum other than the writ Court. Petitioner must find his remedy. 6. With above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. September 25, 2025 MN/- WRIC No. 25463 of 2025 2 (Arindam Sinha,J.) . (Avnish Saxena,J.) Digitally signed by :- MAHENDRA NATH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad