As per case facts, the Petitioner, a works contractor, was awarded a road construction project. The contract estimates indicated Kupari Quarry as the source for minor minerals. However, this quarry ... had been closed by a National Green Tribunal Order, a fact not disclosed by the Opposite Parties. The Petitioner had to procure minerals from a much farther location, incurring additional costs, and sought price variation. The Opposite Parties rejected this claim, citing a contract clause that fixed 'rate sand prices'. The question arose whether the Petitioner was entitled to price variation/escalation for minor minerals given the undisclosed closure of the designated quarry and the specific wording of the fixed-price clause. Finally, the Court ruled that the Opposite Parties had misrepresented the quarry status and misconstrued the contract, which only fixed 'sand' prices. Applying the principle that law does not compel the impossible, the Court set aside the rejection and directed a pragmatic reconsideration of the Petitioner's claim for additional overheads.