M IANGUL HASSAN AURANGZEB, J:- Through the instant writ petition, the petitioners voice their grievance against the steps being taken by the National Highway Authority ("NHA") to effect recovery of Rs.185.630 million on the basis of the audit objection raised with respect to a Variation Order for Rs.250.063 million pertaining to the Contract for the provision of Consultancy Services for "Feasibility Study & Detailed Design of Yakmach-Kharan Road (113 KM approx)."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners drew the attention of the Court to the consultancy agreement dated 10.02.2015 and submitted that under clause 3.4 of the said agreement, the liability of appellant No.1 was restricted to twice the total remuneration of the consultants; that the total remuneration for the consultancy services was for an amount of Rs.25 million; that the liability of the Consultant under the said agreement expired within three years of the date of its completion; that the said agreement was completed long ago and more than three years have already elapsed; that the contract was completed for an amount less than the amount approved in PC-I; that the Variation Order for Rs.250.063 million was necessitated in order for the embankment height of the road to be made 3.0 meters in order to protect it from an erosion by water; that this was technical matter, which had been approved by the Engineer as well as the Executive Board of the NHA; and that the NHA was not able to convince the Departmental Accounts Committee ("DAC") as to the issuance of the said Variation Order, which resultantly decided to effect recovery from the petitioners' payments under ongoing contracts. Learned counsel for the petitioners prayed for the writ petition to be allowed in terms of the relief sought therein.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the NHA submitted that the instant petition is premature as till date the NHA has not issued any notice to the petitioners for the recovery of Rs.185.630 million; that the documents with respect to which the petitioners have raised their grievance are inter-departmental and not addressed to the petitioners; that the NHA is cognizant of the order dated 22.11.2023 passed by this Court in writ petition No.3580/2021, order dated 06.05.2021 passed in writ petition No.1952/2020 as well as the order dated 13.01.2023 passed in writ petitions No.391/2017 and 346/2021; that any steps taken by the NHA would be in conformity with the observations of this Court in the said orders; and that indeed there exists a dispute resolution mechanism in the Contract executed between the petitioners and the NHA, and that the disputes between the parties are to be resolved in accordance with said mechanism. Learned counsel for the NHA prayed for the writ petition to be dismissed.
4. I have heard the contentions of the learned counsel for the contesting parties and have perused the record with their able assistance.
5. Learned counsel for the NHA is correct in his submission that the instant petition is premature as till date no notice has been issued to the petitioners seeking recovery of any amount based on the decisions taken by the Public Accounts Committee the minutes whereof are annexed at page 15 of this petition. It is within the realm of possibility that a notice for recovery of any amount may not be issued by the NHA to the petitioners. In the event any such notice is issued, the petitioners will be at liberty to challenge the same before the appropriate forum. It is expected however that steps for recovery against the petitioners ought not to be taken without a formal notice envisaged by the terms of the Contract executed between the petitioners and the NHA and bearing in mind the principles set out in the above-mentioned orders passed by this Court in writ petitions No.391/2017, 1952/2020, 346/2021 and 3580/2021.
6. This petition stands disposed of in the above terms.