' Briefly stated the facts are that the respondent invited bids for collection of advertisement charges in Cantonment area (V.I.P. Routes and except V.I.P. Routes) Rawalpindi Cantonment by 23- 12-1998. The petitioner participated in the said auction and was informed vide letter, dated 6-1-1999 that his offer had been approved by the respondent-Board vide its Resolution No, 13, dated 31-12- 1998 on payment of Rs,66,00,000 per annum for a period of one year i,e,, 1-1-1999 to 31-12-1999. It was specifically mentioned in clause (i) of the said letter that the petitioner had to pay the contract money per month at the rate of Rs,5,50,000 on or before 5th of each month. A formal notification regarding acceptance of the offer was issued on 27-1-1999.. On 13-3-1999, the respondent issued a letter directing the petitioner to deposit Rs,l 1,00,000 by 31-3-1999 which letter was duly replied vide reply, dated 22-3-1999, clarifying to the respondent that he should not interfere in the process of collection of advertisement charges. Thereafter, on 28-3-1999, it was announced in Daily Jang, Rawalpindi that contract of the petitioner has been cancelled and concerned agencies were directed to stop payment of the charges to the petitioner. Similarly, an auction notice was also issued in the newspaper inviting fresh bids. This action on the part of the respondent has necessitated the institution of the present writ petition, wherein a declaration has been sought that order of the respondent regarding cancellation of bid and of inviting fresh bids for the said period be declared illegal and void Comments of the respondent were called which have been submitted.
2. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that admittedly, he participated in the bid for the collection of advertisement charges pertaining to the period w,e,f, 1-1-1999 to 31-12-1999 which was formally granted to him vide letter, dated 6-1-1999 and which showed that his bid had been approved by the Board vide Resolution No,13, dated 31-12-1998. Thereafter, a formal notification was also issued on 27-1-1999. According to the terms of the agreement, the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs,25,66,000 till today and now the agreement has been cancelled by the respondent without seeking approval from the Board.
4. Conversely, the stand of learned counsel for the respondent that vide Resolution No,13, dated 31- 12-1998, bid in favour of the petitioner was approved. On 15-1-1999, he was informed vide letter (Annexure-J) to complete the formalities and deposit the amount mentioned therein, that he failed to comply with the requirements of letter, dated 15-1-1999, as such he was again issued a reminder on 23-1-1999 (AnnexureK), that he still failed to honour his commitment and was again issued a letter on 2-2-1999 (Annexure-L) and was required to deposit a sum of Rs,9.80,000, that he still failed to comply with the said letter, as such he was again issued letters on 15-2-1999 and 10-3-1999 (Annexures M and N) but even then he did not deposit the due amount, that it was on 13-3-1999 that the respondent resolved vide Resolution No,20 that contract of the petitioner be cancelled.
Accordingly, he was informed vide letter, dated 13-3-1999 (Annexure P) that if he failed to clear the dues up to 31-3-1999 amounting to Rs,11,00,000 and failed to complete the unsigned agreement within a period of seven days, his contract shall be cancelled and security deposited will be forfeited towards the amount due till 31-3-1999 amounting to Rs,11,00,000, that in spite of the said letter, dated 13-3-1999, neither the petitioner paid the outstanding dues nor completed the unsigned contract, that under these circumstances the letter regarding cancellation of contract has been issued strictly in accordance with law.
6. The only point which requires determination is, if the contract awarded to the petitioner for the collection of advertisement charges vide Resolution No,13, dated 31-12-1998 has been cancelled in accordance with law or not.
7. The stand of the petitioner is that the said contract could not be cancelled without any valid resolution of the Board. This contention has been admitted by learned counsel for the respondent, who has submitted that contract has been cancelled on the basis of Resolution No, 20, dated 13-3- 1999. It is also pertinent to point out that the petitioner was required to fulfill the terms and conditions, whereby he was granted the contract for the collection of ac divertissement charges and he failed to discharge the same. The petitioner was issued various reminders from 15-1-1999 till 10-3-1999 whereby he was required to deposit the outstanding dues and also to complete unsigned contract. As he failed to fulfill the requisite conditions of contract, so the respondent was constrained to pass a Resolution No,20, dated 13-3-1999, whereby he was again given time of seven days for clearing the outstanding dues and to execute the agreement. This information was accordingly communicated to him vide letter, dated 13-3-1999 (Annexure P). Even after receipt of this letter, the petitioner failed to clear the outstanding dues and to sign the agreement. This compelled the respondent to publish a notice in the newspaper regarding cancellation of contract in favour of the petitioner. Thus, the action on the part of the respondent in cancelling the contract of the petitioner is unexceptionable and has been taken strictly in accordance with law.
8. Again it is well-settled law that the High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction would not interfere if the matter involved is a question arising out of contractual obligation. See Messrs Momin Motor Company v. The Regional Transport Authority, Dacca and others (PLD 1962 SC 108), The Chandpur Mills Ltd. v. The District Magistrate, Tippera and another (PLD 1958 SC (Pak.) 267), Muhammad Hashim v. Zulfqar Ali Khan, General Manager, West Pakistan, Road Transport Board and others (PLD 1963 (W.P.) Lah.418), A.F.M. Abul Fateh v. Province of East Pakistan and another (PLD 1966 Dacca 178) and Ghulam Mohyud Din v. Secretary, Industries, Punjab and others (1996 CLC 2041 (Lahore). .
9. The upshot of the above discussion is that action of the respondent in cancellation of bid/contract in favour of the petitioner and inviting fresh bids for the said purpose does not suffer from any illegality, as such the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.