' MUHAMMAD ALAM, J.---Petitioner, who is a constructing company, filed this petition with the prayer written above.
2. Admitted state of affairs between the parties is very important as basis of an order on this petition. The following are the main points admitted in the pleadings of the parties:-- "As a construction company, petitioner entered into a contract of work on the suit project with the respondents. All the respondents are government officials except respondent No.1 who is provincial government for G.B. All the respondents have been arrayed in their official capacity except respondent No.7, who is Deputy Commissioner of the district. During progress of the work on the suit subject, respondents initiated some proceedings against petitioner alleging his failure to do the work on the suit project in accordance with different provisions ofcontract between parties.
Respondents are empowered under the different provisions of contract between the parties for initiating proceedings against the petitioner as and when any of them found that the work of the petitioner on the suit project is in violation of any provision of the contract between parties.
Through this petition, petitioner has challenged some actions of the respondents that they have allegedly taken against petitioner in accordance with the different provisions of agreement between parties."
3. We have heard learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Assistant Advocate General at length. From plain perusal of averments of the petition in hand, read with parawise comments dated 18-07-2014 of the contesting respondents, it is evident that the petition in hand has been filed only because respondents initiated some actions against petitioner finding that petitioner violated different parts of the contract between the parties. Petitioner has very clearly averred that he is entitled to get the damages from respondents for a suspended period since 11-02-2006 to 20- 04-2011 under clause 22 of contract to meet the ends of justice, In these circumstances, we have no hesitation in holding that the petition in hand is in fact a suit. And the question for determination is the contractual liability of either of the parties to the case. Instead of going through detailed discussion, we hold that respondents have not done any action amounting to violation of any constitutional rights of the petitioner nor the suit actions of the respondents amounted to any disparity etc, therefore, petition in hand is not only incompetent in the present formbut is frivolous also. Anyhow, petitioner is free to move the Civil Court for redressal of the remedy sought through this petition, if so advised.
4. In view of above discussion, petition stands dismissed holding that the same is frivolous and incompetent. . This file be consigned to record.