' MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J.---Petitioner under purchase Order No . 4137/DGM(P)/DPE-1/GMD/ DT/1983-84/7786, dated 2-5-1984 supplied certain distribution transformers of the value of Rs,2,03,82,670.80 to the respondents in two stages. According to the petitioner delivery period of purchase order was completely unrealistic/impracticable, thus the same caused delay. According to him, the delay in supply was attributable to the respondents on account of their late approval of design, belated/irregular inspection of stores and late allocation of funds by the Chief Engineer. The petitioner claimed that he suffered great agony of awaiting extension of delivery period and thereafter faced onerous obligation of payment of liquidated damages for late delivery of stores under condition No,11 of the purchase order levied at the rate of 2% per month, which were calculated at Rs,72,00,000. It was contended that respondent authority vide office order dated 1-11- 1989 decided to fix the ceiling for imposing the liquidated damages for late supply up to 10% of the contract or purchase price and clause 11(A)(I) of failure and termination was substituted whereunder petitioner was offered to accept accommodation to the extent of maximum 10% liquidated damages for the above referred delivery in good faith with bona fide intention resulting in refund of an amount of Rs,4,594 million to the petitioner being in excess of maximum of 10% of the contract price vide order dated 13-2-1993.
2. Subsequently, it transpired that petitioner was not entitled to refund of Rs,4,594 million and consequently different concerned officials directed to various electric supply companies to deduct from payments liable to be made to the petitioner, the amount incorrectly refunded. Petitioner being aggrieved of recovery notice dated 28-10-1999, filed instant constitutional petition, which was admitted to regular hearing and after completion of record, has now been laid for final hearing. Respondents in response to notice by this Court appeared and were represented through their counsel.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record. Though respondents had urged non-maintainability of constitutional petition and failure of the petitioner to fulfil the contractual obligations under purchase Order No,4137, dated 2-5-1984 within the B time-frame agreed between the parties disentitling him to the discretionary relief yet dispute/matter was taken up by the Chairman WAPDA who decided the same after hearing the representative of the petitioner on 10-9-2001, as under:-- ' "To withhold the requisite amount of Rs,4,594 million out of which Rs,3.85 million is against PESCO order and Rs,0.74 million against IESCO orders, the remaining order to be implemented as contracted."
' The decision of the chairman has already been implemented vide Letter dated 2434 dated 5-10- 2001.
4. The office order dated 1-11-1989 relied by the petitioner to amend clause No,11(A)(I) of the purchase order through its paragraph 4 envisaged that the proposed substitution will come into force w.e.f, 7-10-1989. Petitioner's contract had been completed in March, 1986 and the order regarding maximum liquidated damages not more than 10% of the contract was to take effect from 7-10-1989, prospectively, could not have been invoked to amend the purchase Order No,4137, dated 2-5-1984 issued in favour of the petitioner. Since the purchase order was incorrectly ordered to be amended on the basis of office order dated 1-11-1989, which was to take effect from 7-10- 1989, refund claimed by the respondent was justified, hence no indulgence in constitutional jurisdiction could be shown in favour of the petitioner.
5. For the reasons noted above, no case for staying recovery of illegally refunded amount of Rs,4,594 million could be made out. Even otherwise, lawful decision within the ambit of conferred jurisdiction cannot be substituted on this petition, which being devoid of any merit, is dismissed with no order as to costs.