' JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J. Learned counsel for the respondent T.M.A. Has pointed out, firstly that the conduct of the petitioner disentitles him to discretionary constitutional relief. To support his contention, he has pointed out that although the contract for collection of Adda Parking Fee was executed by the petitioner on 28-6-2003 and, according to the terms thereof, he was required to make payment of the monthly instalment of Rs,1,52,345 on the first day of each month, the petitioner failed to abide by this material term. The petitioner did not make any payment in time.
Instead on 20-10-2003, after a notice had been issued to the petitioner threatening cancellation of the contract, he paid a sum of Rs,1,00,000 Even this amount was insufficient because, according to the terms of the contract, the amount payable by the petitioner was in excess of Rs,6,68,960.
Thereafter also the petitioner continued to commit default in payment of monthly instalments.
2. The default in payment of instalments is not disputed by the petitioner's learned counsel who has himself given me the dates and the amounts on which various payments were made by the petitioner to the T.M.A. These payments fall way short of the payments required under the contract.
In these circumstances, the contention of learned counsel for the respondent T.M.A. That the petitioner is not entitled to discretionary relief on account of his own conduct, has merit.
3. Additionally, it is argued on behalf of the respondent T.M.A. that the matter between the petitioner and the T.M.A. Is based on contract. The petitioner, therefore, can approach the competent Civil Court for redressal of his grievances if, indeed, the respondent T.M.A. Has B committed any breach of contract. This contention also in the circumstances, is well-founded.
4. As to the inadequacy of the notice, dated 9-2-2004, learned counsel for the T.M.A. Concedes that adequate time was not given to the petitioner to deposit the amount set out in the notice. However, it is argued that even without the said notice the petitioner's contract could have been cancelled as per conditions of auction incorporated in the contract executed by the petitioner. In view of the conduct of the petitioner noted above, I am in agreement with this argument advanced by learned counsel for the respondent T.M.A.
5. For the foregoing reasons, this IC petition is dismissed.