2016 PLP 998 (YLR)

MUHAMMAD ALAM, J.

Petitioners have sought the following directions against respondents through this writ petition:-- "It is therefore, humbly prayed that,

1. Respondents may be directed to act, without any discrimination with the petitioners and ordered to pay mature liabilities of peti-tioners without any further delay.

2. That respondents may be directed to explain the reasons for surrender of huge amounts of the budget 2013-14, being unutilized from the Treasury of the Govt. of GB to Treasury of the Govt. of Pakistan and also issue directives restraining the respondents from future surrenders of amounts of the GB Treasury, being unutilized to the Treasury of the Govt., to meet the ends of justice.

3. That the respondents may kindly be restrained to adopt the discriminatory pick and choose policy for the payment of liabilities of Govt. Contractors.

4. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper.

2. Petitioners are admittedly Govt. Contractors and have worked for respondents on different projects at different times. Petitioners have given a chart of liabilities that respondents owe to the petitioners for working and completing different projects for respondents. In the petition in hand, petitioners have mainly pleaded that the respondents are surrendering huge amounts from the yearly budgetary provision of GB, instead of making payments of the outstanding amounts of the petitioners outstanding against them. Petitioners have further pleaded that respondents are playing disparity and discrimination in payment of the liabilities to contractors.

3. We have heard learned counsel for parties at length. The question debated before us is simple and single also, as through this petition, petitioners have simply prayed for payment of amounts that they consider the same are being against respondents for the works petitioners have done on different projects. In our opinion, the petition in hand is simple suit for recovery of amounts. Obviously, petitioners have completed the different projects at different times and the amounts allegedly payable to petitioners are also different. So the cause of action for each and every remedy is distinct and different. The amounts allegedly payable to the petitioners is result of some works on projects completed by petitioners, therefore, such works have been done in compliance with some contracts entered into between petitioners and respondents. By entering into such contracts, petitioners have accepted the mechanism of payments postulated in said contracts. Petitioners have specifically pleaded that respondents are unnecessarily delaying payments of their liabilities. This shows that the court is to see whether claim of each and every petitioner is within limitation or not? So in our opinion, the liability claimed by petitioners is contractual liability and needs to be proved and rebutted through evidence.

4. In our opinion, the above facts are sufficient to hold that the writ petition in hand is incompetent. We, therefore, dismiss this petition but petitioners are free to file suits for their claims against respondents, if law allows so. This file be consigned to record. ZC/135/GB Petition dismissed.