ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA
C.P No.D- 147 of 2009
|
DATE |
ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE |
23.01.2014
Mr. Habibullah G. Ghouri and Mr. Safdar Ali G. Bhutto, advocates for petitioner.
Mr. Ali Azhar Tunio, advocate for respondent No.1 and 2.
Mr. Inayatullah G. Morio, advocate for intervenors/applicants.
----------
Through instant petition the petitioner has claimed his dues which according to the petitioner are outstanding against respondents towards contractual obligation. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the contract was awarded to the petitioner in accordance with law whereafter, the petitioner has fulfilled his contractual obligation, whereas, an amount of Rs.17,27,336.50 has become due which is outstanding against the respondents.
2. Comments have been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein claim of the petitioner has been seriously disputed. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no amount outstanding against respondent to be paid to him, whereas, the alleged contract was awarded to the petitioner in violation of the rules and the then Chairman Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education, Larkana has duly been relieved from his service by the worthy Governor of Sindh, in this account. It has been further stated that the instant petition otherwise, is not maintainable as the contractual obligations can not be enforced through constitution petition, moreover, per learned counsel, matter requires evidence as the disputed facts are involved.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though there is no dispute with regard to the claim of the petitioner however, since factual disputes have been raised by the respondents by filing comments in the instant petition, therefore, the petitioner would not press instant petition and will seek his remedy in accordance with law by filing appropriate proceedings before the competent court of jurisdiction. However, it has been stated that the new Board of Governors of Intermediate and Secondary Education may be directed to re-examine the claim of the petitioner and if it is found to be correct the amount outstanding to the petitioner may be released in order to avoid further litigation in this regard.
4. In view of the hereinabove position and the disputed facts of the case we are not inclined to entertain instant petition which, otherwise involves disputed facts whereas contractual obligations cannot be enforced by filing constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution. Accordingly, instant petition is dismissed as not pressed however, petitioner is at liberty to seek redressal of his grievance by filing appropriate proceedings before the competent court of jurisdiction/forum, as may be available to him, and if the petitioner chooses to file any representation before the Board of Governors of the respondents he may file the same within a period of one month from the date of this order, whereas, it is expected that the said representation may be examined by Board of Governors whereafter appropriate orders may be passed preferably within a period of six months in accordance with law and as per rules.
Judge
Judge