TARIQ JAVAID, J. --- It is contended that the petitioner was awarded a contract for widening/reconstruction of Razia Sultana road from Ghazi road to Zafar Ali road @ 119% above the scheduled rate as amended upto the date, for grant of contract.
2. The petitioner carried out the works in terms of the contract. Since the above road was considered to be an important road the Cantonment Executive Officer, Sialkot Cantt., required the road to be constructed through paver plant (job mix formula). Admittedly, this formula involved mixture of asphalt and laying of the same through mechanical means, which involved extra expenses. The same was allowed vide resolution dated 5.11.2007 and it was decided by the Board that the petitioner would be allowed-the extra expenses. According to the petitioner he had submitted bill for the payment of Rs. 28,87,267/-.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the said extra expenses have been withheld by the respondent No. 1 on a frivolous pretext that the road was made on job mix formula, which does not involve use of paver plant, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to the extra expenses, which is stated to be about Rs. 4,00,000/-. Therefore, the said amount was withheld out of the bills of the petitioner.
4. Notice was issued to the respondents, who appeared. The respondent No. 2 supported the version of the petitioner and documents were shown wherein the construction of the road has been done through paver plant on job mix formula and admittedly this involved extra expenditure which was allowed under the rules. The respondent No. 1 has categorically stated that the objection raised by respondent No. 1 is frivolous and meaningless. However, the respondent No. 1 tried to defend the case with no logical arguments. The only argument advanced by him was that it did not involve any extra expenses, which was repeated in presence of the both, the petitioner and the respondent No. 2. It also appears from the document that initially the contract was granted for the re-construction and widening of the road on conventional manual methods. It is also shown that subsequently the respondent No. 2 required the job to be done with paver plant and allowed the extra expenditure. It is also admitted on behalf of the respondent No. 2 that the road was constructed in accordance with the requirements of respondent No. 2, which was made through paver plant. In these circumstances the objection raised by the respondent No. 1 appears to be frivolous. This writ petition is allowed with costs and the respondent No. 1 is directed to clear the bills of the petitioner without any further dela