' SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J.---By filing writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, a direction was sought by respondent No,1 that the respondents (in the petition) may be ordered to pay final bill of the petitioner amounting to Rs,2,19,066. The petition was accepted through the judgment dated 9-12-1998 which has been assailed through this IntraCourt Appeal.
2. The learned counsel contends that the proper remedy for the writ petitioner in view of the factual controversy involved in the case was to file a civil suit and writ petition was not maintainable in the circumstances. It is contended that the learned Single Judge has erred in law in allowing such a petition. The learned counsel for respondent No,1 supports the judgment of the learned Single Judge and contends that since the liability had been admitted by the Government functionaries, the petition was justifiably accepted by the learned Judge.
3. We have considered the respective contentions of the learned counsel and the material on the record has been considered. In the judgment it has been noted that liability had been admitted and the claim of the appellant had been examined by a Committee and on scrutiny, the claim was passed the same was not, however, paid due to paucity and lack of funds. Such a view was taken by the learned Judge in view of the report that had been filed before the Court. In the report submitted by the Secretary Local Government and Rural Development Department, Government of Punjab. It was conceded and stated that "The work was allocated to Mr. Muhammad Tufail, contractor. An amount of Rs,4,13,934 was paid to the contractor on account of the work done by him at site. The remaining amount worth Rs,2,19,066 has not been paid to the contractor due to non-availability of funds." No different plea could be taken by anyone, in view of such a clear stance. In such view of the matter, the learned Single Judge was fully justified to place reliance upon the report of respondent No,1 and to grant relief to respondent No,1 in view of the admitted liability. To relegate respondent No,1 to the Civil Court would have in the circumstances been merely an exercise in futility which could have resulted in prolongation of an unproductive litigation. Suffice it to observe that in a democratic set up, the Government functionaries are expected to be just, fair and reasonable in their approach towards the citizens. If the claim of respondent No,1 was not in dispute and he was not being paid simply for the reasons that the funds were not available, he could not be denied relief in writ jurisdiction. It does not behave the Government functionaries to deny that what is the due of a citizen, and take shelter behind technicalities.
' As a result of the above, we find no valid justification to interfere in the judgment rendered in the writ petition. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.