1989 PLP 1253 (CLC)

AJMAL MIAN, J:‑The petitioners through this petition have prayed for the following reliefs:‑ (i) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to declare that the impugned letter No.EE/Sch‑41/Div‑11‑127 dated 11‑7‑1987 Annexure XIX and endorsement of Respondent No.3 addressed to Respondent No.4 as contained in Annexure XVIII are mala fide, illegal, unconstitutional, without jurisdiction and of no legal effect. (ii) Restrain the respondents from giving effect to the above stated impugned orders/actions or in any way interfering with the assigned work namely Additional work of constructing 25 meter road in Sub‑Sector I section 10 and Drain work in Sector‑7 of Scheme No.41 of Surjani Town. (iii) Any other relief deemed fit, necessary and proper for doing complete justice. (iv) Costs."

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above petition are that the petitioners filed an earlier petition namely, C.P. No.745/1987 alleging therein, that they were awarded certain works of construction in pursuance of orders passed by the Chief Minister of Sind and respondent No.l illegally were taken away the said work from the petitioners. It appears that a Division Bench of this Court asked for comments from respondent No.l, which were submitted, in which it was alleged that the letters produced by the petitioners alongwith the petition did not contain the signatures of the Chief Minister of Sind and of the Director‑General of K . D . A . Be that as it may the petitioners withdrew the above petition on 28th September, 1987. The petitioners have filed the present petition in which they have prayed for the above‑quoted reliefs.

3. The main grievance of the petitioners is that respondent No.l are depriving the petitioners from the above contract work in violation of the rules. In our view, the question whether there was any concluded contract or not is a disputed question of fact and so also the question whether respondents have any right to terminate the contract also involves disputed question of fact. It is an admitted position that no formal agreement has been executed between the petitioners and the respondents Nos.l and 2 and no formal work order of the execution of the alleged contract work, has been issued by respondents Nos.l and 2 to the petitioners. We are inclined to hold that the above‑disputed questions of facts cannot be adjudicated upon in .a Constitutional Petition. The proper remedy, if any, is in the form of a suit if the petitioners have any cause of action. The above petition has no merits and, therefore, it is dismissed in limine. M . Z . S./ S‑307/ K Petition dismissed