' This is a petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitutional Order, 1981 whereby the petitioner requests that the refusal of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to supply the tender documents .To the petitioner be declared to be illegal, mala fide and thus without lawful authority. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner is an approved contractor of Sui Gas Authority. Respondent No, 1 advertised and invited tenders for the work mentioned in the advertisement (Annexs ; B/1 and B/2), i.e, providing Sui Gas Pipelines and connections at Khanewal, whereby approved contractors were asked to produce cash deposit receipts for the earnest money or the Bankers Guarantee Bond in lieu thereof valid for 15 months in respect of the work applied for up to 12 hours on 30-5-1981, before they could purchase tender documents at unrefundable cost of Rs, 50 for works vide items Nos. 1 and 2 and Rs, 30 for the works vide items Nos. 3 to 6.
' It is further stated that the petitioner obtained the Bankers Guarantee Bond from the U. B. L. Giri Ganj Bazar, Bahawalpur, and submitted the same to respondent No, 2 for the supply of tender documents for the work shown in items Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 of Annexures B/1 and B!2 but respondent No, 2 without any justification and with mala fide intention refused to supply the same and thereby the respondents have failed in their duties.
' To show that the petitioner was approved contractor of Sui Gas Authority, he produced Annexs : D- 1 and D-2 (uncertified photostat copies even not attested by the learned counsel) which may not be looked into but in the larger interest of justice I have gone through these annexures and find that these documents too, do not disclose that the petitioner was approved contractor for Khanewal, District Multan.
2. The respondents in their parawise comments have stated that according to the list of the approved contractors procured. From Sui Gas Pipelines, Multan (Annexure A), the petitioner is classified as a contractor for Bahawalpur only and not for Khanewal, District Multan, and that he had not produced Bankers Guarantee Bond as required in the publication and thus he could not get the tender documents.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner firm is approved contractor for Low Pressure and High Pressure and the respondents have issued tender documents to Messrs Ali Contractors, shown at serial No, 2 of Annexure A, although he was not a contractor for Khanewal. He further submits that the security receipts placed by him on the record (Annexs : C-1 to C-4) tantamount to Bankers Guarantee Bond or in any case it is a cash deposit receipt.
4. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the parawise comments submitted by the respondents. I find that the petitioner did not produce the Bankers Guarantee Bond as required in the publication and the security receipts (Annexs. C-4) do not tantamount to cash deposit receipts. In any case, the assertion of the petitioner that he was qualified approved contractor and A had produced Bankers Guarantee Bond has been refuted by the respondents. Petitioner's contentions are, therefore, based on disputed question of facts which cannot be gone into by this Court in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction.
' For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed in limine.