' MUHAMMAD ALAM, J.---Petitioner, who is Senior Minister in the G.B. Cabinet, has sought payment of Rs.7500 per day as rent of the vehicle No.GHE-B-786 from 1st June, 2012 till 10th December 2014 from respondents, through this petition.
2. Through the averments in the petition, petitioner has pleaded that he is entitled for the use of government vehicle as minister of the Cabinet of Government of G.B. In his petition, petitioner has further pleaded that the respondent No.1 had given a government car for petitioner but petitioner did not deem the same a proper conveyance and instead requested the Chief Minister, through application dated 31-05-2012 for permission to use the personal vehicle of petitioner on rent. The Chief Minister allowed the said application through an endorsement on the said application.
Petitioner contacted the respondents repeatedly for furnishing a suitable vehicle for the petitioner but the respondents failed. The Chief Minister repeatedly issued directions to respondents for allotting a dependable government vehicle in favour of the petitioner but respondents did not honour such directions also. Then petitioner requested respondents for payment of the monthly rent, mentioned above of the above mentioned vehicle of the petitioner but respondents did not - agree. Hence, this petition.
3. We have heard learned counsel for parties and have gone through the available material on file.
We have thoughtfully considered the arguments of the counsel for parties. Learned counsel for parties mainly debated on the maintainability of the petition. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that petitioner has no other remedy except to move this petition, therefore, petition in hand is maintainable. On the other hand, learned Assistant Advocate General opposed the version of petition and contended that the petition in hand is not only baseless but the remedy sought through petition is purely a question of civil right of the petitioner, therefore, the proper forum for redressal of the remedy is a civil suit.
4. In the case in hand, prayer part of the petition has attained very importance, therefore, we reproduce the same here under for ready reference:-- ' It is, therefore, humbly prayed that respondents may kindly be directed to pay the rent of above mentioned hired vehicle @7500/- per day from 1st June 2012 to up till now to meet the ends of justice."
' Paras Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6 are very important paras of this petition, wherein petitioner has specifically averred averments containing pure questions of facts. In para No.2 of the petition, petitioner has admitted that he was allotted a government car, which in his opinion was not feasible for the area of G.B. In para No.3 of the petition, petitioner has specifically averred that he returned the said vehicle and instead filed application dated 31-05-2012 for permission of the use of vehicle No.GHE- B-786 on rent. In para No.5 of the petition, petitioner has averred that the Chief Minister issued repeated directions for issuance of a dependable vehicle for the petitioner. We have gone through the parawise comments of respondents who have denied almost all averments of the said paras with few admissions. The admissions are not helpful in proof of the petition. From plain perusal of above referred parts of the petition, it is evident that the questions raised through this petition and the remedies sought through this petition are purely of civil nature and a writ petition is never competent. An important aspect of the case is failure of the petitioner for getting the directions of the Chief Minister processed through the mechanism provided for the same. It is not disputed that for drawing amounts from the government exchequer, a very peculiar mechanism is adopted and copies of the order of obtaining a private vehicle on rent is passed by a specifically deputed officer and copies of the same are sent to the AGPR. Mere fact of allowing the petition dated 31-05-2012 of the petitioner by the Chief Minister, even if admitted, is never an authority to draw any amount from the government exchequer. We do not find any evidence showing that the government car admittedly supplied to the petitioner was inferior to the other government vehicles supplied to the other members of the cabinet. Yet another unanswered question was that, whether any other minister was also allowed to use any rented vehicle? Obviously, it is an admitted state of affair that all the ministers of Cabinet of G.B. Government also hailed from G.B. So the important question is that whey and how the petitioner expected or even deserved a different treatment, regarding provision of government vehicle from the other members of the cabinet.
5. In the above circumstances, we hold that the remedies sought through the petition contained pure questions of facts and needs to be proved and rebutted through evidence. In our opinion, respondents have not displayed any patent disparity 'regarding the provision of government vehicle to the petitioner and other members of the cabinet of G.B. Therefore also the petition in hand is incompetent. . This file be consigned to record.