2010 PLP 2380 (YLR)

HAFIZ ABDUL REHMAN ANSARI, J.

Petitioner Muhammad Arif son of Malik Ahmad Bakhsh has filed this writ petition with the following prayer: - " ..a direction may be issued to the Tehsil Municipal Officer, Jampur to release the outstanding amount of Rs.1,98,554 and surety amount of Rs.20,000 regarding the completion of the work during the financial year 1999-2000 from O & M budgetary grant already provided to the department by the DCO".

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the instant writ petition are that the petitioner being an approved government contractor was allotted contract for construction of drains, bricks (pavement) in the rural draining scheme Lal Garh Tehsil Jampur by the Public Health Engineering Department, Rajanpur in the year 1999, the said work the petitioner completed in the year 2000, after completion of work the petitioner submitted his bills; out of the total amount of Rs.1,77,600 plus the security amount of Rs.20,900 remained outstanding against the department. Earlier the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 223 of 2003 for the recovery of the same amount. The said writ petition was dismissed on 21-6-2004 on the ground that factual controversy was involved which could not be resolved in the writ petition. Criminal Original No.115-W/2009 in the said writ petition was filed which was disposed of vide order dated 29-4-2009. The said order passed in the Criminal Original is reproduced hereunder:- "Respondent No.3 present in Court states that claim of the petitioner is under process and excepted to be decided within 10 days. As such no order is called for in this contempt petition which is disposed of accordingly". The instant writ petition has been filed for the recovery of the same amount for which earlier writ petition was filed and dismissed. In the criminal original no specific order was passed for payment of the amount.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Some work was allotted to the petitioner by the Public Health Engineering Department for construction of drains/streets etc. Much factual controversy is involved about the work completed by the petitioner. The learned Law Officer has opposed this writ petition contending that the contract of work was granted in the year 199 which was completed in 2000. Earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed so he could not file the instant writ petition. Whether the petitioner completed the same in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract or not this fact cannot be resolved in this writ petition as recording of evidence is necessary to resolve the same. The unpaid amount for the construction of work the petitioner may recover through a civil suit; because if the amount was ascertained and was admitted by the respondent department in that eventuality this Court could exercise its discretion in favour of the petitioner. The amount as well as the work completed by the petitioner is disputed, and further the claim of the petitioner is hit by the principle of laches, because the work was completed in the year 2000 but the claim is being made in 2009. The contractual obligation cannot be enforced through the writ petition. Reliance can be placed on the case reported as Zonal Manager vs. Mst. Parveen Akhtar (PLD 2007 SC 298). The petitioner is at liberty to avail any other appropriate remedy for the redressal of his claim. This writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. A.R.K./M-388/L Petition dismissed.