' The facts in brief are that M/s. Shahbaz Traders petitioner firm was awarded lease for the collection of export tax (goods exit tax) of Zila Council, Multan, for the period from 24-9-1998 to 30- 6-1999 as being highest bidder. The bid was finalized for Rs,11,45,00,000. A formal written agreement was also executed between the parties on 23-9-1998. The petitioner deposited an amount of Rs,57,25,000 as security being 5% of the total bid amount in addition to the earnest money which had been deposited at the time of holding of the auction. The petitioner requested the respondents that since the demand as well as the deposit of Rs,57,25,000 as 5% security is against Rule 16(3) of the Punjab Zila Council (Goods Exit) Tax Rules, 1990, and that amount having been deposited under coercion and threat of cancellation of agreement contract, the same may be adjusted towards the last instalment but the respondents did not pay any heed towards the request made by the petitioner and instead issued a notice, dated 30-4-1999 for the deposit of last instalment which was challenged by the petitioner by way of filing W.P. No, 3810/99 against Zila Council, Multan, wherein the violation of above rule was assailed. By an order, dated 4-5-1999, it was directed by this Court that the amount of Rs,57,25,000 deposited by the petitioner firm as 5% and security be adjusted towards last instalment of the contract. The petitioner firm, however, deposited the last instalment amounting to Rs,1,45,69,376. The lease of the petitioner was, however, cancelled on 5-6- 1999 and the Zila Council took possession of all the Goods Exit Posts where the staff of the petitioner firm was working. This writ petition has been directed against the order, dated 5-6-1999 whereby the Chairman Zila Council, Multan, cancelled the lease contract awarded to the petitioner firm.
2. Syed Tahir Haider Wasti, leanred A.A.G.- has filed parawise comments on behalf of respondents No, 1 and 2 and various preliminary objections regarding non-maintainability of the petition in view of--
(i) the existence of clause' 27 of the agreement regarding mandatory reference to the Arbitrator.
(ii) approaching the Court by suppressing material facts and with unclean hands to avoid payment of remaing dues to it under a valid contract.
(iii) in presence of adequate and efficacious remedy available to the pettioner under the Punjab Local Government Ordinate, 1979, and the Rules made thereunder.
(iv) the petitioner has raised many disputed questions of facts which cannot be gone into and become subject matter of inquiry in the constitutional jurisdiction.
(v) contractual rights and liabilities cannot be enforced in exercise of constitutional petition.
' Learned A.A.G has also contended that writ petition No, 3810/99 filed by the petitioner firm against the Zila Council has been dismissed in lemine by my learned brother Faqir Muhammad Khokhar on 15-6-1999 on merit. It was contended that the lease agreement was executed between the parties with their free will and consent and without any duress and pressure which was binding upon the parties. Learned A.A.G. In support of his arguments has relied on "Mumtaz Ahmad v. Zila Council Sahiwal through Administrator and others" (1999 SCMR 117), "Haji Muhammad Yousaf v. The Province of Punjab and others (PLD 1997 Lahore 674), "Malik Sakhi Muhammad and another v. Zila Council, Rahimyar Khan, and 2 others" (1998 CLC 1628).
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in reply to the above objections regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, has relied on 1998 CLC 117 M/s Wak Orient Power and Light Ltd. And another v The Government of Pakistan and another. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Advocate General has placed on record Fax copy, dated 23=6..1999, and submitted that in CPLA No,471/1998 (Government of Pakistan and another v. M/s Wak Orient Power and Light Ltd. & another) leave to apperal has been granted by Honble Supreme Court of Pakistan vide order, dated 16-6-1998, wherein it is further ordered that the interim order passed in Chambers will continue. The leanred counsel submits that by the above said order the order passed by the High Court in the above said case has been suspended. Therefore, at present the authority referred by the learned counsel for petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for petitioner as well as the learned A.A.G. At some length and also gone through the record. The execution of the agreement/contract has been admitted by the petitioner. The agreements being enforceable by the law are contracts between the parties under Section 2(h) of the Contract Act. The petitioner cannot go beyond the accepted terms and conditions of lease. The petitioner if had any grievance could have invoked Arbitration Clause and referred the matter to the Arbitrator. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in a recent judgment reported as Mumtaz Ahmad v. Zila Council Sahiwal through Administrator and others (1999 SCMR 117) held as under:-- "The petitioners had voluntarily executed the lease agreements without any duresss, compulsion or threat and had not only agreed to pay Instalments for the months of July, August and September, 1997, alongwith other dues, but had actually deposited the same at the time of assuming work under the lease agreements. They were, therefore, not justified to take exception to those payments at the fag-end of the lease period. Anyhow, if they had any grievance, they could have invoked the Arbitration clause and referred the matter to the Arbitrator or file appeal under the relevant rules, but in view of the availability of these remedies, they could not have invoked the writ jurisdiction, hence, the Intra Court Appeals filed by the petitioners were rightly dismissed and in consequence these petitions are dismissed."
' The remedy by way of filing an appeal under Rule 14 and revision under Rule 15 of the Punjab Local Council (Export Tax) Rules, 1990, has also been provided which is not availed by the petitioner.
Rule.14 & 15 reads as under:
14. Appeal. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Punjab Local Councils (Appeal) Rules, 1980, appeals against the assessm ents made and orders passed under these rules shall lie before:
(i) The Taxation Officer, if the order is passed by the Tax Clerk or Tax Inspector;
(ii) The chairman, if the order is passed by the Taxation Officer; and
(iii) The Commissioner, if the order is passed by the Chairman.
(2) The provisions of the Punjab Local Councils (Appeal) Rules, 1980, shall mutatis mutandis apply to all cases of appeals under these Rules.
15. Revision. (1) Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Local Government and Rural Development Department or any Officer specifically authorited by him in this behalf may call for and examine the record of any proceedings.
(2) On examining the record under this rule, the Officer mentioned in sub-section(1) may direct the authority to make further enquiry or may, in his discretion himself exercise any of the powers conferred on any Appellate Authority.
(3) No order under this rule shall be passed without affording an opportunity of being heard to the affected person.
(4) No proceedings by way of revision shall be entertained at the instance of any person who has a right of appeal under these rules or who has exercised the said right."
It is also well-established principle of law that the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be ordinarily invoked to enforce contractual obligation. Reference may be made to "Raja Muhammad Ramzan and 21 others v. Union Council, Bajnial, and another (1994 SCMR 1484).
5. In view of what has been discussed above, writ petition is not maintainable. The petitioner may seek his remedy, if so advised, before the competent and proper forum.
6. With this observation this writ petition stands disposed of.