ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

C.P. No.D-8047 of 2017

___________________________________________________________ Date Order with signature of Judge

___________________________________________________________

Hearing of Case:

1. For hearing of CMA No.33619/2017.

2. For hearing of main case.

-----------

22^nd February, 2018

Mr. Rasheed Ashraf, Advocate for Petitioner.

Mr. Asim Mansoor Khan, D.A.G. alongwith Mr. Altaf Ahmed Moghul, Executive Engineer, Pak PWD.

-*-*-*-*-*-

Through instant petition, the petitioner has alleged harassment at the hands of the respondents, who, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, have not made payment of outstanding amount of bill for the work, which according to learned counsel for petitioner, was performed by the petitioner in the year 2010. It has been further stated that the respondents instead of releasing the amount, have threatened the petitioner for blacklisting. Notices were issued, pursuant to which, comments have been filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein, the claim of the petitioner has been disputed.

We are of the considered view that the contractual obligation cannot be enforced by filing a Constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution. We have already dismissed similar petitions on this count, being not maintainable, as the same involve disputed facts and require recording of evidence by a Court of civil jurisdiction.

Accordingly, instant petition is hereby dismissed alongwith listed application for being not maintainable. However, petitioner will be at liberty to approach the relevant forum and/or Court of civil jurisdiction for the recovery of the amount, which according to learned counsel for the petitioner, is outstanding against the respondents. Before parting this order, we may further observe that respondents shall ensure that no harassment shall be caused to the petitioner, who shall be dealt with in accordance with law and if, there is some amount outstanding towards performance of some contractual obligation between the petitioner and the respondents, the claim of the petitioner may be considered in accordance with law after due verification and proper scrutiny of the accounts of the respondents.

J U D G E