CH. UAZ AHMAD, J.~ Brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that the respondent advertised tender through Daily Nawa-i-Waqat dated 25.4.2000 for the supply of I0O steel Almirahs. Petitioner has also submitted his tender in obedience of the advertisement made by the respondents. Petitioner's bid was accepted being lowest. The agreement was also executed between the petitioner and the respondent. Petitioner prepared steel Almirahs in accordance with the specification and gauge as advertised by the respondents in the tenser and according' to the terms and conditions settled between the petitioner and the respondent The respondent visited the workshop of the petitioner off and on and found the Almirahs prepared by the petitioner in accordance with the specification as is evident from annexure attached with the writ petition.
Subsequently, the committee of the respondent observed that the gauge of Almirahs was found to be correct but in weight was not in accordance with the specification. Petitioner was directed to complete the work as per specification along with the weight required tor this type of Almirahs vide letter dated 27.7.2000. Subsequently, without any justification the respondents cancelled the contract and security of the petitioner was also forfeited by the respondents. Petitioner challenged the aforesaid order of the respondent through this Constitutional petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the original advertisement, the weight was not mentioned and the respondents did not inform the petitioner at the time of inspection that the Almirahs were not prepared by the petitioner in accordance with the specification except letter dated 27.7.2000. The action of the respondent is without lawful authority.
2. Learned Legal Advisor of the respondents raised a preliminary objection that writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner wants enforcement of the contract through a Constitutional jurisdiction.
3. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record myself. It is admitted fact that petitioner wants enforcement of the contract through a Constitutional jurisdiction which is not permissible as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following judgments:- PLD 1958 S.C. 257 (Chanpur Mill Ltd's case).
PLD 1962 S.C. 108 (M/s. Momin Motor Company's case).
Petitioner and respondents executed a contract of their own sweet will which contain Arbitration Clause 22 which is Reproduced hereunder:- "In the event of any question or dispute arising under these conditions or in connection with this contract (except as to any matters the decision of which is specially provided for in these conditions) the matter in dispute shall be referred to the decision- of the sole Arbitrator who will be an officer serving in LDA to be nominated by the purchaser."
The aforesaid clause clearly reveals that petitioner has alternative remedy to invoke the arbitration clause. Therefore, writ petition is not maintainable as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1999 SCM R 121 (M/s. Murad Ali & Company's case). Even otherwise according to the petitioner's counsel, the petitioner prepared Almirahs in accordance with the specification whereas the stand of the Department is otherwise as is evident from impugned order and letter dated 27.7.2000. This fact brings the case in the area of disputed questions of fact and this Court has no jurisdiction to resolve the disputed questions of fact in a Constitutional jurisdiction as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Muhammad Younis case 1993 SCM R 618.
In view of what has been discussed above, this writ petition is not maintainable and the same is dismissed.