Messrs FRONTIER CONSTRUCTION CO. PRIVATE LIMITED through Managing

ORDER

' IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---Through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 the petitioner challenges the impugned action/order of the respondents highlighted in newspapers about blacklisting the petitioner's Firm and contemplating action against it on the ground that the same has been passed at the back of the petitioner without any lawful authority and after declaring the same so, the petitioner's Firm may be allowed to complete the Convocation Hall which is half way through and the entire machinery/apparatus of the firm has been deployed in the process.

2. The brief facts narrated in this petition are that the petitioner's Firm is duly registered 'A' class Construction Company which has undertaken various works with the different Government Departments and has also been successfully undertaking Projects of the Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan and that for the construction of Convocation Hall at new Campus Bahauddin Zakariya University. Multan the petitioner in response to advertisement in the National Print Media offered the lowest bid of Rs,4,15,62,139 which was accepted and only after the work order was issued vide letter dated 14th September, 2001 the petitioner's firm started work. On the receipt of some complaint according to the petitioner some inquiries were initiated to verify the standard of construction by an Engineer of University of Engineering Technology. Specimen was sent to Building Research Laboratory Lahore and result was in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner issued noticed to University for payment of Rs,33,00,000 and in response the University has also issued notice to the petitioner while raising counterclaim of Rs,82,00,000 against the petitioner.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has read in the news item published in Newspapers Daily 'Khabrain' and 'Jang' dated 19-4-2004 that the respondents have chosen to blacklist the Firm and further to initiate proceedings against them, hence, the writ may be issued, as the said action of the respondents is without lawful authority and illegal having been passed at the back of the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner's firm cannot be blacklisted without issuance of notice and providing opportunity of hearing. It is also contended that the petitioner Firm was granted construction work being lowest bidder and it worked up to the required standard but in spite of that order for blacklisting the firm has been got published in newspapers without issuing any formal order, which being illegal and unlawful, is liable to be set aside.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length. The petitioner/Firm of its own showing has not received any order through which University has blacklisted it. This petition has been filed only on the basis of news item published in Daily 'Khabrain' and 'Jang' on 19-4-2004 according to which syndicate has decided to blacklist the petitioner firm and also to take action against the responsible officials if any malpractice in the construction of Convocation Hall is found.

A writ petition be issued on the basis of the news item as the petitioner who has obtained contract of construction from the University will definitely be informed about its fate. Even otherwise, the counsel for the petitioner has agreed that according to the terms there is arbitration clause in case of any dispute but the copy of agreement has not been attached with this petition. As such the petitioner has also an alternate remedy in case any action is taken, which so far has not been informed to the petitioner by the respondents. It is petitioner's own case also that they are already indulged in controversy with the University and notices have been exchanged in between them raising counter-claims, In this view of the matter writ cannot be issued merely on the basis of new items unless any specific order passed by the competent authority is before it reflecting the exact position. This writ petition having been filed at premature stage cannot be entertained, which is dismissed in limine.