ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

       C.P. No.D-347   of   2008.

DATE OF HEARING

ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

FOR KATCHA PESHI.

18.12.2009

                        Mr. Nisar Ahmed G. Abro advocate for petitioner.

Mr. Abdul Hamid Bhurgari Addl. A. G a/w Amjad Pervaiz, Northern Dadu Division..

                                                -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-

                        The petitioner has sought relief for payment of Rs.1351637/- as outstanding amount on account of contract work carried out by him in the Irrigation Department.

                        The brief facts as stated in the petition are that the petitioner being contractor was awarded work of M & R Bund Northern Dadu Division Larkana, Western Sindh Circle Larkana in the year 2002-03, in Dokri Sub-Division on emergent basis and the petitioner has completed the said work to the satisfaction of Irrigation Authorities, the M.Bs in the matter were recorded and the bills for the work carried out by the petitioner were prepared but payment of the same is being avoided to him on the different pretext.

                        The comments have been filed by the respondent No.1 i.e. Executive Engineer Irrigation, Northern Dadu Canal Larkana and so also other respondents. The respondent No.4 in his comments has admitted the case of the petitioner and not disputed a single shell of the amount, so claimed by the petitioner. While other respondents have not denied the execution of work.

                        According to the learned Addl. A. G, the work carried out and liabilities created by the officials during past years were to be scrutinized by the Chief Minister’s Inspection Team Enquiries and Implementation Team, who has found that while awarding the contract codal formalities were not observed. Therefore, the Team did not scrutinize this case. However, the carrying of the work in question is not denied even by the learned Addl. A. G.

                        Mr. Amjad Pervaiz, XEN, Northern Dadu Canal, Larkana present in the Court states that the case of present petitioner was referred as liability created by the officials in the past year but funds have not been released from the Government.

                        The case of petitioner of carrying  out the work has  not been denied by way of any documents, rather the averment of the petition have been admitted.  The formalities, if any, were to be observed by the concerned officials at the time when the work was awarded to the petitioner and from documents we see that this work being of emergent nature was got carried out in which formalities may have not been observed but fact remains that the Government is liable to pay this amount, for which the petitioner is being deprived since many years.

                        In view of eh above admitted position, we allow this petition and direct the respondents to make payment of Rs.1351637/- to the petitioner; and in order to compensate petitioner to some extent on account of a long delay, the  mark up at the rate of 10 percent should also be paid from 01.1.2008 within a period of two months failing which the authorities will have to face proceedings on disobedience of the order.

Judge

                                                                                                            Judge