1. ' MUZAFFAR ALI, J.--- We propose to dispose of the Writ Petitions Nos.74 of 2008 and 75 of 2008 through this single judgment as same legal and factual points are involved in both the writ petitions.
2. ' The facts which gaye rise to the writ petitions are that, the respondent No,1 awarded contract of metalling of 17 Km. Truckable road from KKH to Gomari Darel and metalling of 17 Km. Truckable road from KKH to Juglote Tangir District Diamer. As per contention of petitioners, the respondents delayed issuance of start order and when the petitioners completed metalling of 4 K. Road the respondents issued cancellation of agreements, likewise construction of 13 Km. Truckable Road from Renei Chilas to Broshka Botogah Nala was awarded to the petitioners under Writ Petition No,75 of 2008, on lump sum basis of amount Rs,22.927 billion by the respondents. The contract awarded to both the petitioners were rescinded, hence, these writ petitions before this Court.
3. ' On the other band the respondents were summoned to the Court to argue the writ petition on the point of temporary injunction prayed for by the petitioners. The respondent during course of arguments, resisted the writ petitions as well as the temporary injunction; firstly on the point of preliminary objection about maintainability of writ petitions and on facts, they vehemently denied the facts stated in both the writ petitions and urged that both the petitioners/contractors failed to complete the awarded contract works, despite the facts that they received huge amount of contract consideration in advance and they were issued notices from time to time for completion, but they failed, hence the respondents rescinded the contract awarded to both the petitioners as last resort.
4. ' We heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Advocate-General-for respondents.
5. ' The learned counsel for the petitioners although went to assail the rescission order on factual grounds too, but he emphasized on the point that the rescission order has been passed without issuance of show-cause notice and without hearing the petitioners, as such the impugned orders are not only an utter violation of well-settled principle of natural justice "Audi Alteram Partem" but respondents have also violated clause 3 of the agreement deed between the parties. As such, the rescission orders against both the petitioners are ultra vires, without jurisdiction and nullity in the eyes of law. He in support of his version cited the following case-law:--- (1) PLD 2006 Lah.
6. 84.
7. ' This crucial technical point was confronted to the responsible officials of respondents appeared before the Court, they frankly conceded that no notice of rescission under clause (3) of agreement deed was issued to the petitioners. The learned Advocate-General in full professional skill, tried to meet the point with the contention that the petitioners have deliberately, after getting huge advance amount ignored to perform their part of contract and let the stipulated period of contract to be lapsed, they were issued many notices to intimate and make them recall to perform their part but despite the notices, they failed to perform the same, as such rescission order under clause (3-C) are proper and within the ambit of jurisdiction of the respondents. He cited the case-laws: 2003 YLR page 1501, 2004 PCr.LJ page 356, 2004 MLD page 1310, 2000 SCMR 718, 1994 SCMR page 2287, PLD 2002 SC page 1068, NLR 1987 Civil (sic), 2001 MLD 1477, 2004 MLD 597 and PLD (sic) Kar.
8. Page 185.
9. Before going into the merits of the cases, we feel it necessary to discuss the unwarranted conduct of the officials in the cases in hand with a critical view that how they managed the things against the State interest in the instant cases. For instance, the officials without any hesitation and without looking into the work performed by petitioners, paid huge amount to the Contractors. Secondly, they left technicalities without fulfilling the same before going into rescission of contract while in dozens of cases, this Court has decided and intimated the Administrative Authorities to comply the well-settled principle of natural justice which is "Audi Alteram Partem" simply meaning thereby is that the same is universally recognized no one can be condemned unheard, no person can be penalized and if penalized otherwise, the penalty becomes ultra vires and without jurisdiction.
10. ' After passing the above general stricture, now, we are going to discuss the cases in hand, whereupon we found that no show-cause notice has been issued to the petitioners before rescinding the contracts and this fact has been frankly conceded by the officials appeared for respondent No,2. At this stage, we appreciate the preparation of learned Advocate-General in the instant cases as he did all his professional efforts for defending the respondents, but he frankly stated at Bar that the technicalities have been left by the officials with mala fide intention.
11. ' As for the point of serving of notice and hearing of the petitioners is concerned, there is no second opinion amongst the Courts of law in Pakistan as well as in civilized world that no one can be condemned unheard even if no provision has been incorporated in rules and bye-laws, while in cases in hand, clause (3) categorically mentions serving of notice to the contractors before rescinding the contracts, so the orders issued by respondents to rescind the contract cannot stand in field, as the same are without jurisdiction and ultra vires.
12. ' The upshot of the above discussion is that the respondents have taken action against the petitioners without fulfilling the basic formalities of natural justice and Contract Agreement too; hence without going into merits, rescission orders, dated 8-11-2008 are hereby set aside and any future action, if taken, must, comply the stated formalities.
13. ' Petitions are disposed of accordingly.