1. ' The brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are that the petitioner participated in the auction proceedings held by the respondents. The petitioner's bid was accepted being the highest qua the tenders in question. The agreement was also executed between the parties. The petitioner allegedly completed the work and submitted his bill for release of the amount qua the work done by the petitioner but the respondents failed to release the amount to the petitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved, filed this writ petition.
2. ' The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No,2 accepted the stand of petitioner in reply of para.7 of the writ petition; that respondent No,1 also accepted the claim of petitioner, that respondents are duty bound to release the amount qua the work done by the petitioner under the lawful contract executed between the parties; that respondents have no authority to withhold the aforesaid amount of the petitioner.
3. ' I have given my anxious consideration to the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. Respondents Nos.1 and 2 filed contradictory parawise comments. In case reply of paras. 4 and 7 of report of respondents Nos.1 and 2 are put in juxtaposition then stand of both the respondents are contradictory to each other. The claim was not finalized by the competent authority as is evident from para.4 of reply of report of respondent No, 1 . The agreement executed between the parties contained arbitration clause and this Court has no jurisdiction to take the cognizance of the matter in view of the law laid down in the following judgments:--- (1999 SCMR 117) Mumtaz Ahmad's case.
4. (1999 SCMR 121) Project Director, Balochistan Minor Irrigation and Agricultural Development Project, Quetta Cantt. v. Messrs Murad Ali & Co.
5. ' The petitioner wants enforcement of the contract through this Constitutional petition which is not permissible in the eyes of law. In case the contents of writ petition and parawise comments of respondents Nos.1 and 2 are put in the juxtaposition then it brings the case of petitioner in the area of disputed question of fact. This Court has no jurisdiction to resolve the disputed question of fact in Constitutional jurisdiction as the law laid down in Mauhammad Younas Khan's case (1993 SCMR 346). The respondent No,1 raised preliminary objection that petitioner has alternate remedy to file appeal under the Rules and Provisions of Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, therefore, writ petition is not maintainable as the law laid down in Muhammad Ismail's case (PLD 1996 SC 246). It is also settled proposition of law that nobody should be penalized by the inaction of public functionaries as the law laid down in Abdul Latif Qureshi's case (PLD 1994 Lah.3), however, in the interest of justice and fairplay, let a copy of writ petition be sent to respondent No,1 who is directed to decide the matter qua the claim of petitioner strictly in accordance with law after providing proper hearing to petitioner and respondent No,2 till 27-7-2001. The petitioner is directed to appear before respondent No,1 in his office on 12-7-2001 at 11-00 a.m., respondent No,1 is also directed to submit report to D.R.(J) of this Court within the stipulated period.
6. ' The petitioner's counsel is directed to hand over copy of writ petition to Malik Akhtar Hussain Awan, A.A.-G., who is directed to send the same to respondent No,1 for necessary action and compliance.
7. Disposed of.