1. ' MUHAMMAD KHURSHID KHAN, J.-This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan calls in question letter No, 1626-A/30/S 16 dated 30-6-1979 by which the Commander, H. Q. Peshawar Log Area (respondent No, 3) extended the period of contract for the supply of fresh onions by the petitioners upto September 6, 1979, which was originally for the period from 1-1-1979 to 30-6-1979. The petitioners have further asked for a direction upon the respondents that they (petitioners) are also entitled to compensation to the extent of the loss suffered by them on account of the supplies made by them after 30th of June 1979. The facts, so far as it is necessary to state them for the disposal of this petition, are few and simple and are outlined thus.
2. ' The petitioners, Messrs Sarwar Khan, are approved Army Contractors. They obtained contract for the supply of onions for Nowshera area for the period from 1-1-1979 to 30-6-1979 by virtue of an Agreement Deed No, 30 of 1979. Clause 19 of the said deed which is relevant for the purpose of this petition reads :- "19 (i) In the event of a State of Emergency being ordered by Commander, Peshawar Log area in the area under which the contract is held and the control of supplies/services such as are required under the contract, being taken over by the civil or Military authorities, I/we agree to obtain my/our requirements for the purpose of this contract through and under the supervision of the same authorities and without extra cost to Government, i,e, without altering the signal tendered rate for supply under the contract.
(ii) In the event of such state of emergency being ordered while the contract is in force and within 61 days before expiry of the contract period I/we hereby agree that. If desired by the officer sanctioning the contract, the contract shall continue in force upto date 68 days after the date originally fixed for the termination of the contract."
3. ' On June 30, 1979, the Commander, H. Q. Peshawar Log Area (respondent No, 3), wrote a letter (Annexure-E) informing the petitioners that the contract entered into between them which was due to expire on June 30, 1979, has been extended upto September 6, 1979, and that they should continue to supply the onions till the extended date. The petitioners, it appears, continued the supply under protest and decided to challenge the order extending the period of contract, by means of this petition.
4. ' The grievance of the petitioners is that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as being illegal and without jurisdiction. Mr. Burhanuddin K hattak, learned counsel for the petitioners appearing before us, very faintly tried to argue that the impugned order extending the period of contract was mala fide and that no emergency having been declared, the petitioners could not be obliged to continue the supply of onions after the expiry of the period of contract at the rates already agreed to between the parties and that at any rate, the future supplies had to be arranged at the cost and risk of the Government.
5. ' For the purpose of the present petition, we would desist from saying anything in regard to its merits, as the petition can be disposed of on a short ground. It would be seen that the matter involved in this petition is a contentious one which cannot be decided in a summary procedure of the present nature. The grounds, upon which petitioners have challenged the decision contained in the letter dated 30th June, 1979, are :
(1) That no emergency has been declared.
(2) That tenders were called for four times and tenders did come forward but none of these was accepted.
(3) That extension could be accepted if the intimation had been given 61 days before the termination of the contract.
(4) That this extension is mala fide.
6. ' We consider that the agreement entered into between the petitioners on the one hand, and respondent No, 3 on the other, in regard to the supply of onions for the period from 1-1-1979 to 30- 6-1979, and the decision contained in the letter dated 30th, June 1979, for extension of the period of contract up to September 6, 1979, involve rights and obligations arising out of the contract. The right claimed by the petitioners is based on contract and the petitioners have not been able to show that they possess a legal right which can be enforced through a writ petition. Needless to say that the matter in controversy would not only involve the determination of the right and obligations arising out of the contract but would also entail the rendition of accounts between the parties as a result of the determination of such rights and obligations. We are of the view that a matter, like the present one, involving contractual obligations and entailing the rendition of accounts between the contracting parties, cannot be determined by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction nor can a writ be issued to enforce it. Such a matter can be better agitated. And adjudicated upon in a properly framed suit. It would, therefore, be proper to leave the petitioners to seek their relief by way of a suit before a Court of competent jurisdiction. It is, in the circumstances, unnecessary to examine if the order questioned before us is unauthorised by law or is mala fide.
7. ' On the view of the matter that we take, the writ petition cannot proceed and is accordingly dismissed in limine. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.