JUDGMENT IMAM BUX BALOCH, J.---The petitioner in his petition has prayed as under:--
(a) To direct respondents to make payment to petitioner on the basis of sanctioned rates viz. Rs.7196 of one thousand CFT on the basis of measurement record 1262000 CFT in measurement Book No. 621. Dated 23-4-2008.
(b) To restrain the respondent No. 4 not to accept tenders of else contractor, so also issue work order in his name of the same ADP scheme 2009-2010, in fresh name of Public Park Jacobabad.
(c) To direct respondents to pay enhanced rates from 2006, till today for which the respondents arc liable to pay. 21 The case of the petitioner is that he is approved government contractor and he filed tender in the office of District Officer Buildings, Jacobabad, in the name of Messrs Muslim Construction. Company, Jacobabad, for construction of Begum Saeeda Soomro Park at Jacobabad city. It is further case of petitioner that work was started by him of dressing and levelling of earth work, but burrow pit excavation undressed lead up to 100 ft (extra lead 3 miles), such sketch of distance earth and site of work was prepared by respondents Nos.4 and 5 through Airport road and the same was approved by both the officials. That on 2-5-2008, petitioner submitted an application to respondent No. 3 to the effect that burrow pits around the Jacobabad city are available at distance of seven miles and due to extra lead he may be allowed for taking earth from burrow pits at same distance, and such request of petitioner was allowed and respondent No.3 wrote a letter on 11th February, 2009 to respondent No.2 for grant of additional demand of funds for A.D.P (ongoing), schemes 2008-2009, ultimately respondent No.2, accorded sanction of release of funds in respect of approved scheme and it was placed at the disposal of E.D.O Buildings for incurring the expenditure, but in spite of that amount has not yet been released and amount is outstanding against respondents for the work which has been recorded in measurement hook of respondents made by petitioner. Lastly petitioner has stated that, on the some grounds other construction companies have been given same facility.
3. Parawise comments have been filed by respondents Nos.4 and 5. And in last of their comments they have stated that all the payments from 1st R/A bill to 5th R/A bill of earth measuring quantities is 12,62.000 eft on the sanction rate by Chief Engineer (B), Hyderabad, in TS and these all bills were accepted by the contractor on up to dated 23-6-2008, the same quantities sanction by EDO (W&S)
Jacobabad is 53,7000 cft at rata 71,96/33 based on High ways schedule rate for the work filling of earth of roads/internal paths which is not been carried out by the contractor. That contractor has completed almost 92% of earth work in primary filling and accepted all payments which have been made to him on the sanctioned rates of C.E(B) and extra item of earth received by respondents on 13-9-2008 for filing the additional earth to fill the embankment of road/path but contractor stopped the work so work could not measured/ recorded in measurement book.
4. We have heard Mr. Abdul Qadir Abro, learned counsel for petitioner, Mr. Abdul Hamid Bhurgri, learned Additional A.-G and with their assistance have gone through the material available on the file. The petitioner has already received the bills of work, which he has completed. It -appears that at the time of acceptance tender the petitioner was fully aware with the tender notice, consequently he in collusion of official respondents had moved frivolous application for enhancement of earth rates. Once the petitioner has admitted the contents of tender notice and the construction work was allocated to him and he has completed the construction work according to tender and consequently demanding extra rates is malafideness on part of petitioner.
He in collusion of the official respondents wants to give loss to public exchequer on the pretext that the burrow pits were at distance of seven miles whereas in the tender it was mentioned that the burrow pits were situate at distance of less than such distance. Once the petitioner has accepted the tender and his consequent turn out is clearly mala fide on his part. In such eventuality we observe that this petition is misconceived and by short order dated 23-9-2010, we dismissed this petition, and these are reasons for the same.