CH. 11AZ AHMED, J.--- The brief facts out of which the present intra Court appeal arises are.That the respondent filed a Constitution Petition No. 9067/2000 with the following prayer:- "It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the respondents be directed to make payment of the amount due to the petitioner as has been worked out by the Executive Engineer and there is no dispute with regard to the same plus the amount of variation in price and the amount of profit at he rate of 20% from .30.6.1995 till the date of payment."
The learned Single Judge. Accepted the writ petition ride the impugned judgment dated 25.9.2001.
The appellant being aggrieved filed this writ petition.
2. The learned counsel of the appellant submits that the appellants did not accept the claim of the respondent before the learned Single Judge. He further submits that the work was not completed in terms of the specified period. He further submits that appellant failed to release the amount of the respondent on account of the inaction of the respondent as the respondent did not complete the work within the specified period in terms of the agreement executed between the appellant and respondent. He further submits that the writ petition was not competent, as the disputed question of fact cannot be resolved in Constitutional petition.
3. We have considered the contentions of the learned counsel of the appellant and perused the record ourselves.
4. It is better and appropriate the reply of para 10 of the report and parawise comments fired by the appellants in response to the directions of the learned Single Judge in Constitution petition:- "Denied as the petitioner was paid upto 18.6.1995 according to his work executed as site, and lapse of funds amounting to Rs.5.00 lac was also due to his slow progress of work. However, he will be paid according to his contract agreement on receipt of funds for which higher authorities are being requested repeatedly by the respondent No. 1 detailed below:- Letters from respondent No. 1 to respondent No. 2:.
(1) No. 1053/S dated 3.10.1995,
(2) No. 1220/S, dated 18.12.1995,
(3) No. 1250/S, dated 27.12.1995,
(4) No. 87/AB, dated 9.12.1996,
(5) No. 796/AB, dated 26.2.1997,
(6) No. 118/S, dated 27.2.1997,
(7) No. 250/AB, dated 11.7.1998,
(8) No. 733/S, dated 24.9.1998,
(9) No. 948/S, dated 18.11.1998,
(10) No. 312/AB, dated 28.12.1998,
(11) No. 16/AB, dated 20.3.1999,
(12) No. 42/AB, dated 8.7.1999, (13,) No. 956/S, dated 16.9.1999,
(14) No. 26/AB, dated 6.4.2000,
(15) No. 522/S, dated 21.4.2000,
(16) No. 503/S, dated 20.6.2000.
The aforesaid para clearly reveals that the appellant accepted the liabilities and did not raise any counter-claim as well as did not raise any controversial facts. The learned Single Judge rightly accepted the Constitutional petition in terms of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Messrs Wak Orient Power and Light Limited v. Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Water and Power and 2 others' (1998 CLC 1178). The Honourable Supreme Court has laid down the following principle in the case of Messrs Airport Support Services v. The Airport Manager, Quaid-e-Azam International Airport, Karachi and others (1998 SCM R 2268):- "The rule is founded on the premises that public functionaries, deriving authority from or under law, are obligated to act justly, fairly, equitably, reasonably, without any element of discrimination and squarely within the parameters of law, as applicable in a given situation. Deviations, if of substance, can be corrected through appropriate orders under Article 199 of the Constitution."
The Honourable Supreme Court has given the following observation in Shaukat A.I's case (PLD 1997 S.C. 324):- "We may observe that since Pakistan is founded on the basis of religion of Islam, efforts should be made to bring about an egalitarian society based on Islamic Concept of fairplay and social justice.
The State functionaries like Railways are expected to act- fairly and justly, in a manner which should not give to any one any cause of complaint on account of discriminatory treatment or otherwise. While discharging official functions, efforts should be made to-ensure that no one is denied to earn his livelihood because of the unfair or discriminatory act on the part of any State functionary."
It is the duty and obligation of the public functionaries to release the amount of the respondent claimed by him on the basis of the work done by him in terms of the agreement as is envisaged by Article 4 of the Constitution. .