' HAFIZ TARIQ NASIM, J.--- The backdrop of this writ petition is that the petitioner being the successful bidder entered into agreements with the respondent Market Committee and the said agreements provided a specific clause No,65 for resolution of disputes through arbitration. The petitioner started his work', however, due to some disputes he received payments .Under protest reserving his rights to demand the payment of differential amount, which according to the petitioner was wrongly deducted from his bills. The petitioner pressed for payment of wrongly deducted amount but with no success. He filed different representations to the Administration Market Committee, Faisalabad for the release of withheld amount and even wrote a letter dated 16-2-1997 to respondent No,1 Secretary, Agricultural Department, Gc ernment of the Punjab for intervention in the matter and arrangement for early payments of millions of rupees withheld by the Market Committee.
2. The petitioner also addressed a letter to the Superintending Engineer, Local Government and Rural Development Punjab, Lahore dated 23-2-1997, who had been named in the letter as Arbitrator to resolve the dispute by an award through arbitration in terms of the aforesaid clause 65 of the contract, who wrote a letter to the Secretary Market Committee, Faisalabad on 11-6-1997 under the subject of `settlement of premium of the construction---'.
3. In the meantime, the petitioner had completed the construction work of platforms A, B and C and work in other groups was in progress when the Government freezed the funds. The petitioner stopped the work which fact was brought to the notice of E.A.D.A. (E&M), Faisalabad by the Market Committee. Even several letters were addressed by the Market Committee to the Superintending Engineer (Arbitrator) but with no avail. The petitioner had earlier invoked the arbitration clause 65 and submitted his claim to the Superintending Engineer who vide letter dated 1-3-1997 requested the Administrator, Market Committee to submit his comments on the petitioner's claim and ultimately the Administrator vide letter dated 21-10-1999 responded. The arbitration proceedings were going on when Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001 was enforced with effect from 14-8- 2001 repealing the Punjab Local Government Ordinance. 1979 and as a consequence thereof the post of Superintending Engineer, Local Government and Rural Development Punjab was abolished.
Thereafter no provision in any law or rules has been made or any notification has been issued so far naming an arbitrator to dispose of the pending proceedings.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is running froth pillar to post for the redressal of his grievance over the years and even the matter was taken before the Mohtasib.
Further contends that act of the Market. Committee to reduce the agreed premium of 170% above C.S.R., 1979 to 142% around on the basis of an audit objection and of the respondents not to notify or appoint a new arbitrator are without lawful authority and of no legal effect. It is prayed that respondents Nos.1 and 2 be directed to notify or appoint a new arbitrator in view of abolition of office of the Superintending Engineer, Local Government and Rural Development.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that writ is not competent on the sole ground that the petitioner has an alternate remedy available to him under the provisions of Arbitration Laws. Further submits that the petitioner is not entitled for any discretionary relief because he has not approached this Court with clean hands as he had already received the payment whereas filing of this writ petition at a very belated stage is an outcome of ulterior motive and mala fide intention.
6. Arguments heard. Record perused.
7. To resolve the present controversy the best course is to advert to the plain reading of Article 199 of the Constitution, which reveals that an aggrieved person can invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 if he has no alternate remedy, whereas in the present controversy undisputedly clause 65 of the Contract itself enables the parties to invoke the provisions of Arbitration Laws. The Arbitration Laws are unambiguous in terms and if some dispute arose in any controversy as is contended in the present petition, the only course is to approach the Civil Court for resolving the controversy and not to rush to the High Court invoking the provisions of Article 199 of the Constitution.
8. Even the petitioner had already filed a complaint before the learned Ombudsman for the Province of Punjab under the subject of nonpayment of contractual amount by the Chairman, Market Committee, who sought the report from the agency and after taking into consideration all aspects of the matter, held that this is not a fit case for intervention and the complaint was filed.
Keeping in view the circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned matter in exercise of powers under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, which otherwise are discretionary in nature. The writ petition is dismissed.