' ASAD MUNIR, J.---Being the inhabitants of Saroba, a village located on the eastern bank of River Soan, the petitioners have since long demanded that a bridge be built across the River Soan to connect Tatral Saroba Road with Chakri Road which is two (2) kilometres away from the west bank of the River Soan and from where Rawalpindi city lies at a distance 42 kilometres only. The petitioners have demanded the construction of the said bridge as it would immensely benefit the inhabitants of Saroba and its neighbouring village whose travelling distance to Rawalpindi city would be admittedly reduced by more than 30 kilometres.
2. The long-standing demand of the inhabitants of the area including the petitioners was finally accepted when a development scheme called "Construction of Bridge Saroba near village Saroba was administratively approved by the Government of Punjab vide C&W Department letter NoSOH- 1(C&W) 1-4/2004 (Rawalpindi) dated 14-5-2005 and a sum of Rs,98.715 Million was earmarked for the Scheme. However, the construction of the 1125 feet long bridge could not commence due to delay in technical sanction of the scheme which was accorded for the estimated cost of Rs,175.291 million by the Chief Engineer (North) Punjab Highway Department Lahore vide letter No15-2207 RWP/1912/Plg. Dated 30-5-2007 whereafter the work was allotted to a contractor, who was banded over the site on 22-6-2007 and who was required to accomplish the completion of the project within 18 months ending on 21-12-2008. The bridge having not been built within the said time limit, an extension of time up to 30-9-2009 was granted by the Chief Engineer (North) Punjab Highway Department Lahore vide No37-P/07/286/P-2, dated 5-3-2009. However, construction of the bridge did not progress as planned and suffered delays due to a variety of reasons including defects in design with the result that the estimated cost for construction of the Saroba Bridge had to be revised and enhanced to Rs,262.351 million which was approved by the Government of Punjab. Till May, 2009, almost 28 per cent of the construction of Bridge was completed at a cost of Rs,85.387 million but-soon thereafter the work was totally stopped.
3. Keenly looking forward to the construction of the Saroba bridge, the petitioners naturally feel frustrated and are aggrieved as according to them the project has been abandoned on political considerations for having been launched by the previous Government and that there is absolutely no reasons or justification not to execute the project and leave it half way given that admittedly 28 per cent of the bridge has been completed at a cost of Rs,85.387 million. Mr. Tanvir Iqbal, learned counsel for the petitioners, has very passionately argued in support of the writ petition by relying on the principle of legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel and has also referred to the provisions of section 21 of the Government Clauses Act, 1897, to plead that the Government of Punjab has no locus poenitentiae to retrace its steps after the approval and commencement of the construction of the Saroba Bridge.
4. There is no dispute that the scheme for the construction of Saroba Bridge, after its approval, has been implemented to the extent of 28 per cent of the work. Respondent No2, Finance Secretary, Government of Punjab, in his parawise comments has stated that the scheme is being executed by C&W Department and in the approved budget estimates for the financial year 2009-10, an amount of Rs,51.395 million was allocated and released to C&W Department for the construction of the Bridge. In their report and parawise comments, respondents Nos. 1, 5, 6 and 7 have stated that despite facing major financial crunch, the Punjab Government during the financial year 2009-10 released Rs,31.395 million for the project which in any case is of a very low priority as village Saroba is already connected with a metalled road and the construction of the bridge will only benefit the small population of village Saroba.
5. Learned Advocate-General, Khawaja Haris Ahmad, while supporting the stand of the Government, contended that the writ petition is misconceived and incompetent as the petitioners do not seek the enforcement of any fundamental, statutory or contractual right nor does any such right exist in their favour. In support, the learned Advocate-General referred to Saindad and others v. Government of Sindh and others 1997 M LD 819 wherein the honourable Sindh High Court while refusing to interfere with the revision of a water channel scheme held that "the Government was competent to revise the scheme later depending on the feasibility of the project, its advantages and disadvantages, availability of resources etc." Learned Advocate-General also referred to R v.
Cambridge Health Authority, ex parte B [1995] 2 All ER 129 CA and R v. Gloucestershire County Council and another ex parte Barry [1997)2 All ER 1 HL to contend that the Government keeping in view its limited resources can as a matter of policy set its own priorities and in its discretion can refused or discontinue a benefit to a citizen who has no right to question such an exercise of discretion. The learned Advocate-General also stated that the cost of the project due to inflation has risen to 300 million rupees and that the Government of Punjab presently facing financial crunch is not in a position to allocate the necessary funds but a sum of Rs,2 million has still been allocated to the project during the financial year 2010-11 which demonstrates that it has not shelved or abandoned the project. Further contended that, in any case it is a low-priority project compared to the much more vital on-gong development public welfare projects which the Government must execute for the benefit of the general public.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record the facts reflected wherein do not seem to be in dispute between the parties.
7. As to the maintainability of the writ petition, I have carefully gone through the precedents cited by the learned Advocate-General but find that the said precedents are distinguishable for the simple reason that in the present case the competent authority has not only approved the scheme but has also implemented it to the extent of 28% of the work at the cost of 85 million rupees. I may refer to Saindad and others v. Government of Sindh and others (1997 M LD 819) where the water channel scheme whose revision was in question was only approved on paper and was never implemented in any manner or to any extent. The rule in R v Cambridge Health Authority, ex parte B (1995) 2 All ER 129 CA and R v Gloucestershire County Council and another ex parte Barry (1997) 2 All ER 1 HL is also not relevant as the exercise of discretion by the Government or public authority is not in issue but the grievance is that a decision taken earlier is being reversed after being substantially implemented. The case of the petitioners is based on the principle of legitimate expectations which has been evolved and invoked to provide relief on considerations of fairness and reasonableness even though no enforceable legal rights are being asserted or claimed. In the present case, a duly approved public welfare scheme, after been put in operation, has given rise to legitimate expectations which cannot be allowed to be frustrated.
8. This case appears to be on all fours with Makhdoom Muhammad Mukhtar v. Member Provincial Assembly Punjab (PLD 2007 Lahore 61) a case where also a public welfare scheme for widening a road was approved and put in operation but was later annulled. While allowing the prayer for the execution of the scheme, it was held that:- "Another aspect of the matter is that the act of approving the scheme must have given rise to hopes and expectations not only to the petitioner but the local population about its implementation. Reference in this context may be made to Judicial Review Public Action by Justice (Retd.) Fazl Karim Volume-2 page-1365, where the doctrine of "legitimate expectation" and promissory estoppel" is stated to have roots in "fairness". The relevant passage reads like this:- "The justification for treating 'legitimate expectation' and `promissory estoppel' together as grounds for judicial review is, one, that they both fall under the general head 'fairness', and two, that 'legitimate expectation' is akin to an estoppel. As was explained by Simon Brown LJ in R v. Devon CC,' the various authorities show "that the claimant's right will only be found established when there is a clear and unambiguous representation upon which it was reasonable for him to rely. Then the administrator or the other body will be held bound in fairness by the representation made unless only its promise or undertaking as to how its power would be exercised is inconsistent with the statutory duties imposed upon it". The relationship between them is more clearly brought out by what Bingham LJ stated in R v. IRC EX P IMK.
' If a public authority so conducts itself as to create a legitimate expectation that a certain course will be followed it would often be unfair if the authority were permitted to follow a different course to the detriment of one who entertained the expectation, particularly if he acted on it. If in private law a body would be in breach of contract in so acting or estopped from so acting a public authority should generally be in no better position. The doctrine of legitimate expectation is rooted in fairness."
9. I may add that good governance also demands that the project approved and put in operation should be completed otherwise the substantial amount of 85 million rupees incurred so far would go down the drain not forgetting that it constitutes about 28 per cent of the total estimated cost as well the total work. The ground of low priority of the Scheme may have been available before its implementation but decisive steps have been taken and it is too late now to discard the scheme.
However, it is reassuring to note that it is not the case of the Government that the Scheme has been shelved or abandoned but has been slowed down due to paucity of funds. This implies that the Government of Punjab has every intention to complete the construction of Saroba Bridge.
10. As a result of the foregoing discussion, I see merit in this writ petition which is allowed to the extent that the respondents are directed to resume and complete the remaining construction of the Saroba Bridge at the earliest subject to the availability of the necessary funds. There is no order as to costs.