AYESHA A. MALIK, J. --- Through this petition, the Petitioner seeks an amount of Rs,401,934/- which is stated to be due to him for the works that is construction of 04 new c/rooms (24' x 16') and boundary wall in Government Higher Secondary School Midhranjah, Tehsil Bhalwal, District Sargodha.
2. At the very outset, it is noted that in terms of orders dated 16.6.2015 and 14.10.2015, the only grievance of the Petitioner is that letter of EDO, Works and Services, Sargodha dated 8.10.2013 was not being implemented and the learned Law Officer at the time sought time to seek instructions with respect to release of funds pursuant to the letter of 8.10.2013. Learned Law Officer sought several dates and on 16.11.2017 again sought time to file a fresh report and parawise comments.
Today the learned Law Officer stated that the Respondents will rely upon the earlier report and parawise comments which have been filed by Respondents No, 3 to 6 and do not wish to file fresh report and parawise comments.
3. In terms of the report and parawise comments filed by Respondents No,3 to 6, the Petitioner is entitled to receive the price variation of Rs,401,934/-. Learned Law Officer argued that this admission was made on the wrongful understanding of order of the Ombudsman, Punjab dated 6.6.2013 wherein the Ombudsman ordered the Petitioner to avail the remedy available under the contract including arbitration and thereafter appeal to the competent authority. Learned Law Officer argued that the letter of 8.10.2013 while relying on the order of the Ombudsman directed that the funds in the amount of Rs,401,934/- be released for payment to the Petitioner. However on 25.10.2013 this letter of 8.10.2013 was withdrawn as the District Officer Building stated that he did not have knowledge of the order of the Ombudsman when the letter of 8.10.2013 was executed. Hence the Petitioner was advised to avail his remedy under the contract.
4. I have gone through the record and it appears that the Petitioner filed a complaint 'before the Ombudsman for release of payment of price variation. The Ombudsman on 6.6.2013 ordered that the Petitioner can avail his contractual remedy which includes arbitration. In this case, the Respondents do not deny the price variation sought by the Petitioner. They only want the implementation of the order of the Ombudsman or else avoid payment on account of the order of the Ombudsman. Given that there is a clear admission of the liability owed to the Petitioner in the report and parawise comments, there is no reason to the Petitioner to avail any remedy under the contract as arbitration is invoked if there is a dispute with reference to the amounts due under the contract. In this case the liability is admitted and there is no dispute, hence the Petitioner is entitled to the payment of Rs, 4,01,934/-.
5. In view of the aforesaid, the instant petition is allowed and the Respondents are directed to release the amount of Rs, 401,934/- to the Petitioner immediately.