The brief facts giving rise to this writ petition, as disclosed in the writ petition itself, are that petitioner who claims to be a State Subject and 'A' Class Contractor, got contract for metalling, carpetting and improvement of RattaDhangli Road from Miles 5 to 9. Later on, work order was issued on March 4,1991 (Annexure G/1). According to the petitioner, the completion period allowed to him was 24 months and the commencing date was fixed for March 16, 1991. Subsequently, in total disregard and in violation of the terms and conditions of the contract, respondent No,1, on 5th of January 1992, recommended to respondents Nos. and 3 that contract of the petitioner may be cancelled and the same may be given to somebody else. He also recommended that the security amount deposited by the petitioner may also be confiscated. Consequently, on above recommendations, new tenders have been called for January 15, 1992 through advertisement appearing in Daily Jang, Rawalpindi dated January 13, 1992.
2.. In support of the writ petition, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has agitated the following grounds:-
(i) That the respondents have no jurisdiction to issue the impugned orders as the petitioner was supposed to have finalized the work within the stipulated period of 24 months;
(ii) that the petitioner so far, on the spot has completed the work amounting to Rs,18,00,000 but due to non-cooperation of the incharge, staff of the respondents, he has received the payment of only Rs,8,00,000. It is desire of the petitioner that the project which is for the benefit and welfare of the public-at-large, should be finalized even before the stipulated time but the respondents, due to ulterior motives, want to allot the contract to somebody else. This action of the respondents is clearly niala tide and injurious to the interest of the public-at-large;
(iii) that the matter will be prolonged and the development work will be stopped in case the contract is allotted to anybody else because it is quite natural that the new person/contractor will take some time to instal his machinery and to carry on the work; and
(iv) that the respondents are not competent to give the work to any other person without first settling the work done by the petitioner. If the work is allotted to any other person, the petitioner will have to suffer irreparable loss.
3. In my view, the writ petition has been filed virtually for enforcement of the contractual obligations as such it is not tenable under section 44 of the Interim Constitution Act of 1974. This view finds support from a case reported in PLD 1.969 Dacca 105. The question in that case came up for consideration as ' to whether a contractual obligation was enforceable by invoking writ jurisdiction of the High Court. After reviewing a number of authorities on the point, the learned Judges finally observed that under section 98 of the Constitution, a right created by or under law and not a right created by a contract, is enforceable by resorting to the writ jurisdiction.
4. In a case reported as PLD 1966 Dacca 575, the High Court declined to interfere in the order of cancellation of contract passed by the Deputy Commissioner on the ground that right based on a contract is not enforceable through writ petition under section 98 of the Constitution.
5. In 1968 SCMR 1136 the facts were that the Rehabilitation Authorities agreed to sell the evacuee land to the petitioner (therein) for a certain consideration for construction of a factory.
Subsequently, the Rehabilitation Department allotted a part of the property to another person in violation of the aforesaid agreement. The petitioner was also informed that he would retain the part of the property on payment of a certain amount of price for the same. The petitioner felt advised to prefer a writ petition before the High Court for the enforcement of the terms of the agreement. But the same was dismissed on the ground that writ jurisdiction could not be invoked for the enforcement of rights arising out of a contract.
6. In a recent authority titled "Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government v. Neelum Flour Mills", the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court has reaffirmed the same view.
7. In PLD 1962 SC 108 it was observed asunder:- "Learned Counsel then attempted to argue that his client had contractual rights, because he had been made to spend a lot of money on making the road ',us-worthy and the understanding was that no other permit-holder would be introduced in this route. The short answer to this contention is that contractual rights, if any, are not enforceable by recourse to writ jurisdiction:
8. It may further be observed here that under section 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act of 1974, a writ petition would lie only if no other adequate remedy is provided by law. For resolving the disputes arising out of breach of a contract, adequate remedy is available under the Specific Relief Act.
9. Therefore, without going into the merits of the writ petition. in the light of what has been discussed above, I dismiss the writ petition in limine. The petitioner, if so advised, may approach appropriate forum for enforcement of his rights, if any.