2016 PLP 1 (YLRN)

Art. 199

Constitutional jurisdiction

Scope

Contractual liability

Petitioners were government contractors and sought release of amount by authorities in respect of various contractual works undertaken by them on behalf of authorities

Plea raised by the authorities was that claim of petitioners was disputed as work assigned to them was not completed

Validity

Disputed claims of petitioners could not be entertained as the same related to some contractual obligation

Government departments were required to be fair and responsive to all contractual obligations

High Court observed that authorities would consider claim of petitioners strictly in accordance with law and would ensure that outstanding amount would be paid to petitioners within a reasonable time

High Court directed that efforts should be made to get all subject public works completed within stipulated period as per original scheme and the costs so determined to avoid any revision of scheme i.e., enhancement of cost, so that there would be no loss to public revenue on such account

Petition was dismissed in circumstances. [Paras. 5 and 6 of the judgment] Nizamuddin and others v. Civil Aviation Authority 1999 SCMR SC 44 and Pak Com |Limited and others v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2011 SC 44 ref. Shaharyar Imdad Awan Asst. A.G. for the State. ORDER AQEEL AHMED ABBASI, J.

Through instant petition, the petitioners who are claiming to be Government contractors, have sought release of amount by respondents in respect of various contractual works undertaken by them on behalf of respondents, whereas, it has been alleged that in spite of completion of their work, the respondents are not releasing the payments to petitioners. It has been further prayed that the amount of security deposit/ call deposit lying with respondent No.6 may also be directed to be returned to the petitioners.

2. Notices were issued to the respondents, pursuant to which comments have been filed by official respondents, whereas, as per comments filed by the respondent No.6, it appears that the claim of the petitioners has been disputed either on the ground that the work assigned to petitioner(s) has not been completed so far, or there is paucity of funds on account of improper allocation and reduction by 30% in the funds of OZT to respondent No.6 i.e. Town Officer, infra-structure services, Naushehro Feroze.

3. Learned Astt. A.G. has raised an objection with regard to maintainability of instant petition on the ground that the petitioners are seeking implementation of contractual obligations whereas the claim of the petitioners has been disputed by the respondents as the work assigned to petitioners has not been completed. It has been further stated that recently, a Division Bench of this Court at principal seat , vide order dated 05.10.2015, passed in C.P.D. No.5008/2015, Sikandar Korai v. Province of Sindh and others has dismissed similar petition by placing reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, on the subject controversy, and in this regard he has placed the copy of such order on record.

4. While confronted with such position, learned counsel for the petitioners could not satisfy this Court on the point of maintainability, however, contended that respondents may be directed to at least get the funds released from the Finance Department in respect of admitted amount for the work already completed by petitioners, which may be paid to the petitioners.

5. In view of hereinabove facts and circumstances of the case, and the aforesaid Order passed by a Division Bench of this Court on the subject controversy, wherein, reliance has been placed on the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court i.e. Nizamuddin and others v. Civil Aviation Authority (1999 SCMR 467) and Pak Com Limited and others v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2011 SC 44), we are not inclined to entertain the disputed claims of petitioners which otherwise relate to some contractual obligation, therefore, instant petition is hereby dismissed for being not maintainable.

6. However, before parting with the above order, we may observe that Government departments are required to be fair and responsive to all contractual obligations, whereas, it is expected that the respondent may consider the claims of the petitioners. strictly in accordance with law and shall ensure that the admitted outstanding amount against the respondent No.6, shall be paid to the petitioners within a reasonable period of time, whereas, efforts shall be made to get all the subject public works completed within stipulated period as per original scheme and the costs so determined, to avoid any revision of scheme i.e. enhancement of cost, so that there shall be no loss to the public revenue on this account. MH/P-29/Sindh Petition dismissed.