'RAJA MUHAMMAD SHAFQAT KHAN ABBASI, J.---The appellants, namely, (1) The Government of Punjab through Secretary Food, Lahore, (2) Chief Purchase Officer, Government of Punjab, Food Department, Civil Secretariat, Lahore, (3) Accountant General Punjab, Lahore and (4) Director Food, Food Directorate Punjab, Lahore, by filing this Intra Court Appeal have assailed the judgment dated 12-6-2007 A passed by the learned Single Judge in Chambers in Writ Petition No,6543 of 2006, whereby the constitutional petition filed by the respondent was allowed and the appellants had been directed to clear the outstanding balance of Rs,19,65,240 as per contract made between the parties in accordance with law.
2. Precisely the facts giving rise to this appeal are that the respondent-Firm runs a business of manufacturing jute grain sack bags (Bardana) at Khanpur Bagga Sher Multan-Mianwali Road, District Muzaffargarh; in response to advertisement published in Daily National Newspapers on 3- 2-2006, it offered tender for 2907 bales, which was accepted and as per terms and conditions of the contract, consignment was completed within time, but after receipt of the consignment, the appellants did not make payment to the respondent at the agreed rate of Rs,51 per bag, however, they made payment of Rs,46,68,870 at the rate of Rs,48.94 per bag and, hence, an amount of Rs,19,65,240 was still to be paid to the respondent, who approached appellant No,2 for the said purpose, but his claim was turned down with the observation that same is not tenable under the rules; feeling aggrieved of the said act of the appellants, the respondent approached this Court by filing constitutional petition bearing Writ Petition No,6543 of 2006, which was allowed vide judgment dated 12-6-2007. Hence, the instant appeal.
3. It is inter alia contended by the learned Law Officer on behalf of the appellants that impugned judgment is against law, facts and justice inasmuch as the writ petition was not maintainable due to mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties; that the learned Single Judge in Chambers has not properly appreciated the undertaking given by the respondent in the light of Government Policy and Rules/instructions while passing the impugned judgment, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent argued that as there is no factual controversy involved, the impugned judgment is legal and proper and has been passed after considering all legal and factual aspects of the case.
5. We have heard the learned Law Officer for the appellants as also the learned counsel for the respondent and have also gone through the record as well as the impugned judgment.
6. A perusal of the record reveals that admittedly a contract for the supply of 2907 bales of jute bags at the rate of Rs,51 per bag had been entered between the respondent and the petitioners.
The respondent while complied with the terms and conditions of the contract had supplied the required bales within the specified time and accordingly an amount of Rs,46,68,870 had been paid to them, out of contractual amount of Rs,4,86,54,000 by deducting a sum of Rs,19,65,240. The standpoint of the appellants was that according to paragraph 38 of the Purchaser Manual, the petitioner-Firm had provided the Price Reasonability Certificate and they had verified the same through PASSCO, which confirmed that the respondent-Firm had supplied the same jute bags at the rate of Rs,48.94 per bag to them and on the said rate the respondent-Firm was made payment, which is according to the terms of the contract as well as liability. The learned Single Judge in Chambers while concluding observed that plea of the appellants was not sustainable as the PASSCO had entered into an agreement with the respondent-Firm (Annex 'E with the writ petition), wherein it was agreed that the respondent-Firm shall supply to the PASSCO 1000 jute bags at the rate of Rs,51 per bag, therefore, as the rate agreed through the said agreement is Rs,51, the fixation of the reasonable price by respondent No,2 at the rate of Rs,48.94 could be sustained. Insofar as contention of the learned Law Officer that the writ petition was not maintainable as factual controversy was involved therein is concerned, the same has also been minutely dealt with by the learned Single Judge in Chambers while observing that this Court has the jurisdiction to issue a direction for payment of the money in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction. Reliance was placed on the cases of Mahmood Ali Butt v. I.G. Punjab etc. PLD 1997 SC 823 and Bavindir Insaat v. Pakistan through Ministry of Communications and 3 others PLD 2001 Lah.426. It reveals from the perusal of the impugned judgment that the learned Single Judge in Chambers after considering all aspects of the case has rightly issued the direction to the appellants for payment of the outstanding amount of the respondent. The learned Law Officer has not been able to point out any illegality much less any irregularity calling for interference by this Court in the impugned judgment, which is based on sound reasons.
7. We may also observe here that there could be no cavil with the proposition that enforcement of a purely contractual obligation could not properly form the subject-matter of proceedings under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, however, it could not be ignored that the State functionaries had a constitutional obligation to act fairly even when performing an administrative function. Therefore, when a party complained before the Court that the State while awarding a contract to a party had acted in an unfair or arbitrary manner or had discriminated against one of the parties, who contested for the award of the contract, such grievance could be looked into by superior Court in exercise of its powers of judicial review under Article 199 of the Constitution and if the Court was satisfied that the Government while entering into a contractual obligation had acted arbitrarily or in an unfair manner or had discriminated between the parties before it in manner of awarding the contract, it could interfere and strike down such action. In such like situation, the Government must honour its commitment and avoid liability of payment of compensation/damages out of valuable public money and should uphold its dignity and credibility amongst the people.
8. Resultantly, there being no merit in this appeal, the same is dismissed.