CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J. - Brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that petitioner supplied medicines to the respondents on the basis of supply order dated 17.11.1996. Petitioner submitted various applications to the respondents for payment but the respondents failed to give even reply to the petitioner and finally intimated the petitioner in the following terms vide order dated 30.5.1998:- "On examination it has come to notice that your quotation regarding the supply of medicines had already been rejected by the then Deputy Commissioner/Administrator, Zila Council, Toba Tek Singh vide his orders dated 6.1.1997."
Petitioner- being aggreved filed four representations before the Commissioner, Faisalabad Division, Faisalabad who did not decide the same till date and the petitioner constrained by the aforesaid circumstances to file this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that petitioner submitted application before respondent No. 1 for return of the medicines but the respondent No. 1 did not return the medicines within the period of expiry of medicines in question prescribed by the manufacturer. He further stated that petitioner supplied medicines to the respondent No. 1 on the basis of the valid order issued by respondent-Sub Committee constituted by respondent No. 1 recommended for payment of the petitioner on 10.12.1996 but the respondents failed to pay the lawful dues of the petitioner. He further stated that respondent No. 1 mala fidely intimated the petitioner on 30.5.1998 that his application has already been rejected by him by his predecessor-in-interest vide dated 6.1.1997. This belated reply is result of malice. He further stated that this Court has ample jurisdiction to give the direction to the respondents for the release of the lawful dues of the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 stated that writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner wants enforcement of the contract which is not permissible in the eyes of law. He further stated that whether the petitioner has supplied medicines to respondent No. 1 in accordance with the quotations or not relates to a factual controversy and factual controversy cannot be decided through Constitutional jurisdiction.
3. Mr. Raza Farooq, Advocate for respondents Nos. 1 and 3 stated that Commissioner has already decided representation against the petitioner vide order dated 14.10.1998. He placed on record copy of the same. He further stated that petitioner has concealed the material facts from this Court. Therefore, writ petition is not maintainable and the same may be dismissed.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contention of the learned counsel for the parties. It is admitted fact that petitioner has supplied medicines to the respondent No. 1. It is also admitted fact that respondent did not take action against the petitioner well in time. I am not inclined to give my view to inter se contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties so that the case of the either party should not be prejudiced. Learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 and 3 placed on record that Commissioner has decided representation of the petitioner on 14.10.1998. Order dated 14.10.1998 reveals that it was passed by Addl. Commissioner. Therefore, this was not decided by the Commissioner himself. It is the duty and obligation of the public functionaries to redress the grievance of the citizens as is envisaged by. Article 4 of the Constitution without fear, favour and nepotism. It is inherent right of the petitioner that his representation must be decided by the Commissioner within a reasonable time. Let a copy of the writ petition be sent to Commissioner, Faisalabad Division, Faisalabad who is directed to decide the representation of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law after providing personal hearing to all the concerned within two months after receiving the order of this Court without influenced by the aforesaid observation.
Parties are directed to appear before him on 18.2.2000. In case the Commissioner has come to the conclusion then the petitioner is entitled for payment of the medicines supplied by him then he should immediately release the amount due to the petitioner. He is further directed that in case he comes to the conclusion that there are certain persons who are responsible for this mischief then he shall initiate departmental action against the responsible officers/officials and also get criminal cases registered against all persons found guilty.
5. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.