' Briefly stated the facts are that during the year 1993-94 tenders for supplying and erecting 300 KVA generators at Kiri Jamindan Disposal Station, Multan and Old Shujabad Disposal Station, Multan were invited. The petitioner submitted the tenders which were accepted vide Letter No,249/MD/C/DD (Tech.)/WASA, date 10-4-1994 as well as Letter No,862/DD (Tech. )/WASA , dated 27-12-1993 for Rs .22 ,24 ,000 and Rs .23 , 83 ,000 respectively The petitioner carried out the work which was checked by the then Deputy Director WASA (Engineer-in-charge). Accordingly, completion certificates Annexures C & C/1 were issued and payment of bills in respect to both the works was made. He applied for the refund of security as provided under clause 50 of the agreement and respondent No,3 prepared bills for the refund of security amount of both the works amounting to Rs,2,22,400 and Rs,2,38,300 respectively. After the issuance of the above said bills for the refund of security amount, respondent No,1 wrote Letter No,287/MD/WASA, dated 3-12-1995, Annexure J that cheques be not delivered to the petitioner and constituted a committee vide letter dated 1-7-1996 consisting of Muhammad Saleem Shakir, Staff Officer (Tech.) MDA and Raja Munir Latif, Deputy Director Works to resolve this controversy. The said committee held its meeting on 8- 9-1996 and approved the claim of the petitioner. However, the Director Works raised an objection that as Siemens made switches were not installed and Siemens type switches had been installed, so the petitioner was not entitled to the refund of security. The petitioner asserts that at the time of erecting of generators Siemens made switches were not available in the market so the matter was brought to the notice of Managing Director/respondent No,1 who granted his approval vide letter dated 13-6-1994 Annexure I and only then Siemens type change-over switches were fixed. He alleges that inspite of said report, the security was not released, hence he was constrained to move another application to respondent No,1 on 12-9-1998. Upon this another committee was constituted by respondent No,1 who vide his report dated 5-11-1998 decided that a sum of Rs,20,000 be deducted from each work of the petitioner on account of difference of price of said item. He, thus, prays that respondents be directed to release the amount of security of Rs,2,07,400 and Rs,2,38,300 respectively.
2. The respondents' comments were called which have been submitted and perused.
3. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that on 16-3-1999, Mr. Saleem Shakir Deputy Director Mechanical/ respondent No,3 appeared in Court and made a statement that if letter dated 13-6-1994 Annexure I allowing the petitioner to supply Siemens type switches instead of Siemens made switches, is proved genuine, he will have no objection to the acceptance of this writ petition, that accordingly the matter was adjourned for verifying the signature of respondent No,1 on letter dated 13-6-1994, that verification of the signature of respondent No,1 has been made vide letter dated 26-3-1999 whereby respondent No,1 has admitted his signature on letter dated 13-6- 1994. He, thus, submits that as per statement of respondent No,3 writ petition be accepted.
5. Conversely, the petition has been resisted by the other side.
6. The only point which requires determination is if the petitioner is entitled to the release of security amount mentioned in the writ petition. According to clause 50 of the agreement, the security amount is to be released not before six months after the completion of work or removing of any defect, damage as pointed out by the Engineer-in-charge. As per record, the work stood completed on 7-8-1994. The cheques for the release of security were prepared long ago but its delivery was stopped vide letter dated 3-12-1995. The only objection for the non-payment of security amount is that petitioner had supplied Siemens type switches instead of Siemens made switches. Upon this the stand of petitioner has been that he supplied Siemens type switches after the approval of Managing Director vide letter dated 13-6-1994. This stand of petitioner was controverted by respondent No,3. It was stated by respondent No,3 on 16-3-1999 that if the letter dated 13-6-1994 contains genuine signature of Managing Director WASA/respondent No,1 he will have no objection to the acceptance of this writ petition. Accordingly the matter was adjourned for a month to verify his signature. Today respondent No,3 has stated that a letter dated 19-3-1999 was issued to respondent No,1 to verify his signature appearing on letter dated 13-6-1994 and he (respondent No,1) has verified his said signature vide letter dated 26-3-1999 (Copy of which has been placed on record). However, respondent No,3 raised an objection to the effect that although he made a statement to the effect that if signature of the Managing Director on letter dated 13-6- 1994 are genuine, he will have no objection to the acceptance of this writ petition, yet his said statement was subject to the condition contained in this very letter dated 13-6-1994 whereby permission was granted subject to strict financial regularities. His contention is that as the contractor/petitioner supplied Siemens type change-over switches instead of, Siemens made change-over switches, so a sum of Rs,20,000 per unit has to be recovered from him as per decision of the committee dated 5-11-1998. There appears no force in his submission as the decision is not in consonance with the approval granted vide letter dated 13-6-1994, so it has no legal sanctity and there is no justification of said deduction. Consequently, objection raised by respondent No,3 is hereby repelled. Accordingly writ petition is accepted and the respondents are directed to issue the cheques - of the security amount of Rs,2,07,400 and Rs,2,38,300 to the petitioner within -a fortnight.