Through the titled writ petition filed under Article 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974, the petitioner is seeking infra relief: "It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the order of the Respondent No. 1 Bearing No. 2745-49 dated 05.10.2016, Para No. 4 of the audit report issued by the Respondents No. 6 to 8 referred to as Annex. PE and Letter No. 3797-99 dated 14.10.2016 of Respondent No. 9 may be quashed/cancelled."
2. Brief facts as per petitioner are that he is an employee of the Auqaf Department of Azad Jammu and Kasnmir and has been posted as Manager Auqaf Darbar Baba Shadi Shaheed Bhimber. The petitioner alleged that a committee was constituted for awarding the contract of sale of goats, their skins and other related items for Darbar Baba Shadi Shaheed, situated in District Bhimber. On recommendation of the committee, the Respondent No. 4 awarded the contract for the period from 01.07.2014 to 30.06.2015 to Aurangzeb S/o Muhammad Afzal, resident of Dusardwa Tehsil Bhimber (Respondent No. 10 herein). Later on, contractor-Respondent No. 10 approached to the worthy Prime Minster of Azad Jammu and Kashmir through Revenue Minister with the submissions that the rates of items mentioned in Annexure "PA" are very high, therefore, the same may be reviewed. The petitioner contended that, Respondent No. 1 vide Notification dated 12.08.2014 cancelled the order issued by Respondent No. 4 on 20.06.2014 without assigning any reasons or making any alternate arrangement. The petitioner further contended that Respondent No. 3 felt advised that the Govt. Notification dated 12.08.2014 has been issued by violating the relevant rules, submitted as summary to the worthy Prime Minister to review the order but the same was turned down. The petitioner alleged that as a Manager of Auqaf of the shrine, in compliance of the order of Respondent No. 4 dated 12.08.2014 carried out the sale of the offering items for the year 2014-15 according to rates mentioned in the order dated 12.08.2014. The audit of the office of the aforesaid Darbar was conducted by Respondents Nos. 6 to 8 for the period from 7/2013 to 6/2015 and issued an audit report. In Para No. 4 of the report it has been pointed out that the items of offering have been sold on the rates offered by the contractor Aurangzeb and the cancellation of contract which, was earlier awarded to him was without justification which has resulted a loss of Rs. 2127227/-to the exchequer in shape of taxes. An inquiry committee headed by Director Auqaf Mirpur to probe into the matter was constituted; and according to findings of the committee, the contract' awarded to the Respondent No. 10 should have not been cancelled nor the call deposit should have been released. The committee also observed that according to law no tax is livable on the work carried out by the department. The petitioner averred that Respondent No. 1 was cancelled the contract on the recommendations of Revenue Minister by holding that the rates of items are high. After the cancellation of contact by Respondent No. 1, there was no alternate choice with the Respondent No. 4 that the sale of items which were perishable be arranged through the department. Respondent No. 1 without assigning any reason, proceeded to reject the report of the inquiry committee and held that Drawing and Disbursing Officer of Darbar (the petitioner herein) is responsible for so called loss shown to have been suffered by the department. The petitioner further averred that Respondent No. 9 in compliance with the order dated 05.10.2016 has issued a direction to the petitioner vide dated 14.10.2016 that the order dated 05.10.2016 referred to above be implemented.
The order of Respondent No. 1 issued on 05.10.2016, the Para No. 4 of the audit report issued by Respondents No. 6 to 8 dated 28.03.2016 and letter dated 14.10.2016 of Respondent No. 9 are against the law and facts and liable to be quashed.
3. After admission of writ petition, respondents were directed to file written statement but despite giving number of opportunities they failed to file written statement, hence, their right of defence was closed.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, at considerable length and gone through the record of the case with due care.
5. The petitioner herein has challenged the order of Respondent No. 1 dated 05.10.2016, Para No. 4 of the audit report, issued by Respondents No. 6 to 8 and letter dated 14.10.2016. A