MUHAMMAD AMEER BHATTI, J. --- Through this Constitutional petition, the petitioner has challenged two orders dated 25.4.2011 and 2.3.2011 passed by the Medical Superintendent, Services Hospital, Lahore.
2. The brief facts -necessary for the disposal of this petition are that the respondents invited tenders for leasing out pharmacy in emergency area, Services Hospital, Lahore. Bid offer was opened by the Tender Committee and the petitioner was declared highest bidder as the offer of the respondent No. 4 M/s. AAA Medical Store was rejected due to incomplete documents as per PPRA Rules. However, on the complaint filed by the M/s. AAA, the matter was reopened on 19.10.2010 but this act of the respondent dated 19.10.2010 was challenged by the petitioner through a civil suit before the learned Civil Judge, Lahore and alongwith suit an application for interim injunction was also filed and learned Trial Court vide his order dated 2.2.2011, who after providing the opportunity of hearing to the parties, allowed the application for grant of temporary injunction as prayed for.
3. This order of the learned Trial Court was assailed before the learned first Appellate Court through two appeals one filed by M/s. AAA and other filed by Al-Falah Medicos. The learned first Appellate Court on the appeal filed by Al-Falah Medicos, suspended the operation of the order of learned Trial Court dated 2.2.2011. Feeling aggrieved of this order, the present petitioner availed the remedy of civil revision before.This Court, however, this Court directed the petitioner to approach the learned first Appellate Court where an appeal was pending for its early decision and direction had also been issued for the decision of the case by taking into consideration the maintainability of the appeal. It is added that in the wake of order passed by the learned first Appellate Court whereby the operation of the order of the learned Trial Court has been suspended, the respondent Medical Superintendent of Services Hospital, Lahore issued the order dated 2.3.2011 through which he has awarded the contract to M/s. AAA Medical Store, being the highest bidder for the financial year 2010-2011 and the order dated 20.12.2010 passed in favour of the writ petitioner has been withdrawn. Subsequently, another order dated 25.4.2011 (also impugned in this writ petition) had been passed whereby the petitioner has been blacklisted. The validity of these two orders has been called in question through this writ petition by the petitioner. It is noted that the reply has not only been filed by the Services Hospital, Lahore but ,also respondent No. 4 has filed his reply and the matter has been heard at length. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order dated 25.4.2011 has been passed behind his back as he has not been provided with any opportunity of hearing which was necessary before passing this order, thus condemning the petitioner unheard which is clear violation of the law as has been laid clown by the 'Hon'ble Supreme Court. Further contended that the impugned order is unsustainable in the eye of law because for the last 1-1/2 year, the petitioner has been rightfully fulfilling his obligations without there being any allegation or complaint against him but by taking undue advantage of the present eventuality, the impugned order has been hurriedly passed, which on the face of it seems to be based on male fide, to extend unjustified leverage to the respondent No. 4 at the expense of the petitioner i.e. To get the Store vacated from the petitioner by hook and crook. It is further contended that this exercise has been carried out to teach a lesson to the , petitioner for approaching the Court of competent jurisdiction for safeguarding his legitimate rights. So far as the other order dated 2.3.2011 is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that it is the offshoot of the proceedings which are pending before the learned Trial Court and it purports to circumventing the proceedings of the learned Trial Court, hence the order is unlawful and without jurisdiction. The authority has no right to pass any order for awarding the contract to the respondent No. 4 and for this reason, this order is liable to be quashed as the matter is. Sub-judice before the competent Court of jurisdiction.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 has raised serious objection about the maintainability of this petition, particularly against the order dated 2.3.2011. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 contends that the order dated 2.3.2011 has been passed after the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge (when there was no injunctive order in the field), hence no illegality has been committed by the respondent for issuance of the, order impugned in the titled writ petition. The disputed questions of fact have been raised in this writ petition which cannot be resolved .Through this Constitutional petition. Moreover, all the actions of the authorities are sub judice before the learned Trial Court, thus this order cannot be challenged through this writ petition.
5. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record and the relevant provisions of law and letters issued by the authorities.
6. As regards the order dated 25.4,2011, the same on the face of it seems to be issued without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Since a serious allegation has been levelled against- the petitioner which cannot be resolved without providing opportunity of hearing and it is settled law that any order which stigmatizes any person, shall not be passed without providing an opportunity of hearing. It has not been denied by the respondent that before issuance of this order any notice or opportunity of hearing has been issued to the petitioner. Hence keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court, the order dated 25.4.2011 is patently repugnant to the universally recognized canons of natural justice. Consequently, I declared it illegal and without lawful authority and set aside the same. So far as the order dated 2.3.2011 is concerned, that is the outcome of the matter pending before the learned Trial Court be interfered with as per the principle of res sub judice. If at this stage, this Court passes any order or draws any opinion against this order, it will prejudice the case of either party pending before the learned Trial Court.
7. In this view of the matter, this Court does not want to dilate upon on the impugned order and declares that the writ petition is not maintainable to this extent, and the petitioner is at liberty to exercise his legal right against this order where the matter is already pending and the proceedings in this behalf will take their own legal course.
8. In this view of the matter, this petition is partially accepted to the extent of the impugned order dated 25.4.2011 and the same is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Medical Superintendent, Services Hospital, Lahore to decide it afresh after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. So far as the other relief is concerned, this petition to that extent is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
Petition partially accepted.