AYESHA A. MALIK, J. --- Through this petition, the Petitioner has impugned order dated 25.10.2013 passed by Respondent No, 4, Governor of Punjab. whereby the order dated 30.08.2012 passed by Respondent No, 5, the Provincial Ombudsman was modified to the extent that the Petitioner shall be entitled to claim payment of his final bill subject to removal of defects in the execution of civil work.
2. The grievance of the Petitioner is that he entered into a contract for improvement and renovation of Medical blocks with Respondent No, 1 for the benefit of Respondents No, 2 and 3. The work was completed and completion certificate was issued by the Government of Punjab, however payment was not made by the stated Respondents. The Petitioner filed a complaint before the Provincial Ombudsman, who vide its order dated 30.08.2012 decided the complaint in favour of the Petitioner while directing Respondents No, 1 to 3 to make payment to the Petitioner. However the Respondents filed an appeal before Respondent No, 4, the Governor of Punjab who decided the matter against the Petitioner vide order dated 25.10.2013. Hence, this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner argued that the Petitioner completed the work in time and was issued completion certificate on 28.10.2009. Subsequent thereof, the Petitioner has been waiting for his payment, however, no payment has been made. Further argued that the Petitioner seeks payment from the Government of Punjab who is party to the contract with the Petitioner which is due since 2008.
4. Learned Law Officer submitted that Government of Punjab is not required to make any payment.
The payment is due from Respondents No, 2 and 3. Further stated that the Government of Punjab only acts on behalf of the Agency, however the Agency is required to clear all bills and all payments must be made in this case by Respondents No, 2 and 3. In terms of the report and parawise comments filed on behalf of Respondents No, 2 and 3, the work was incomplete, there were many deficiencies which the Petitioner was informed and he was given time to complete the work and remove all the deficiencies, however no positive action was taken by the Petitioner. In this regard a survey was also carried out and the Building Research Station submitted its report on 15.02.2012 which concluded that the work was deficient as the specification given was not complied with by the Petitioner.
5. The basic issue in the instant petition is one of payment in lieu of the services rendered by the Petitioner for improvement and renovation of Medical Blocks, as per contract. The Petitioner has based his entire case for payment on the 'inspection certificate' which shows that the work is completed. It is noted that since the cost of the contract and administrative approval was granted by Respondents No, 2 and 3, and the work was for their benefits, therefore, they are the competent authority to issue completion certificate, on the basis of which the payment can -be made to the Petitioner. The Petitioner has placed on record inspection certificate which is issued by Sub- Engineer, however, it is not completion certificate on the basis of which payment could be made.
6. With respect to the payment sought by the Petitioner, learned counsel for Respondents No, 2 and 3 submitted that the amount in dispute has not been paid on account of deficient work and no completion certificate has been issued on the basis of which the Petitioner can take its payment.
The order of Respondent No, 4 (Appellate Forum) has relied upon the report dated 15.02.2012 issued by Building Research Station on the basis of which it is concluded that the work was not completed.
This is a billing dispute which cannot be determined by this Court in Constitutional petition. The Appellate Forum has decided the matter in its entirety.
7. Under the circumstances, no illegality is made out in the impugned order. The petition stands dismissed.