' ANWER ZAHEER JAMALI, J.---Through this constitutional petition, the petitioner has challenged the action of respondents Nos.1 and 2, communicated to him by respondent No.4 vide Letter No.E/N- 1(141)/II dated 8th October, 2002, whereby the lowest tender submitted by M/s Iftikhar Brothers, owned by the petitioner, which was earlier accepted by the respondents Nos.1 and 2, was discharged under the order of respondent No.1 on the ground that the Vigilance Cell of respondent has not recommended petitioner's enlistment in the Engineering Department.
2. Briefly stated, case of the petitioner is that he is enlisted contractor of respondents Nos.1 and 2, with no limit, since 1970, and had undertaken several works awarded to him from time to time, through open tender invited by respondents Nos.1 and 2. In Toe same process, in response to the tenders invited by the respondents Nos.1 and 2, being lowest bidder, one tender was accepted in favour of the petitioner by the respondents Nos.1 and 2 and such letter was addressed to him by the Chief Engineer on 31-8-2001. Subsequently, when the matter was in the process of execution of contract, without affording any opportunity of hearing, such tender was discharged/withdrawn from the petitioner for no valid reasons.
3. Based on the above assertions, prayers made in the petition read as under:--
(a) declare that the impugned Notice No.E/N-1 (141)/11/288 dated 8-10-2002 is void, illegal, discriminatory and liable to be set aside.
(b) Direct the respondents to issue work order in respect of Establishment of Export Terminal under Jinnah Bridge.
(c) Restrain the respondents, their subordinates, attorneys, assigns or any person acting, for and/or on their behalf from awarding the work in question to any other person.
(d) Cost of the petition may be awarded.
(e) Any other relief which this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case may be awarded.
4. In response to the notice of this petition, respondents Nos.1 to 4 submitted their reply in the form of counter affidavit of Mr. Ismail Soomro, Assistant Executive Engineer, K.P.T. In their reply they did not dispute the assertions of petitioner regarding acceptance of his tender and its discharge through impugned notice, without allowing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. However they attempted to justify their action due to non-recommendation of Vigilance Cell.
5. One of the grounds urged in the petition and also argued by Mr. Abrar Hassan, Advocate is that while taking the impugned action against the petitioner, he has been condemned unheard, as no opportunity of hearing was afforded to him before such unilateral action to his prejudice.
6. Mr. Hassan Azhar Rizvi, learned counsel for the petitioner, half-heartedly resisted the stand taken by the petitioner but later on conceded to the position that the respondents had not afforded any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before taking the impugned action, which was communicated by respondent No.4 to the petitioner vide letter 8th October, 2002.
7. In the above circumstances, both the learned counsel agree that the impugned action taken by the respondents communicated to the petitioner vide notice dated 8th October, 2002 may be set aside, being illegal. However, it may be left open for the respondents to take any further appropriate action in the matter against the petitioner, but not without affording due opportunity of hearing to him in the matter. .
' Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.