| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2006 SLG 604 2006 SLD 604 2006 PLD 198 |
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 16000 of 2005, decided on 10th February, 2006
SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J
Ali Sibtain Fazli for Petitioner. Ch. Aamer Rehman, Addl. A.G. Punjab for
Respondents Nos.1 and 2. Dr. Danishwar Malik, Deputy Attorney-General Pakistan for
Respondent
Writ Petition No. 16000 of 2005, decided on 10th February, 2006
SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J
Ali Sibtain Fazli for Petitioner. Ch. Aamer Rehman, Addl. A.G. Punjab for
Respondents Nos.1 and 2. Dr. Danishwar Malik, Deputy Attorney-General Pakistan for
Respondent
Messrs IRISRIST TECHNOLOGIES (PVT) LTD.
VS
GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and others
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 199
(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)-------Art. 199---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---Factual realm---High Court refrained from entering into factual realm as there was serious controversy about the same. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--- ----Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Relief sought was issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus---Factual controversy---Award of contract by Provincial Government---Letter of award of contract revealed that award of contract to the petitioner was dependent upon the approval by the Finance Department of the Provincial Government whereafter the Contract was to be signed on approval of the Government by the Provincial Law Department---Letter of award of the contract stated to have been issued by the Government had not been admitted by Government in its reply to the assertions made by the petitioner---Authenticity of the very basic document (upon which the case of petitioner rested) thus had been disputed by the Government---In such context when no conclusive and binding contract had yet been arrived at between the parties and the transaction was still at the stage of bid and negotiations, it was to be seen as to whether the constitutional petition could be maintained for such a relief as had been prayed for---Another question of significant. importance was about the legal efficacy of the alleged letter of award of contract---Held, though the issuance of letter was vehemently disputed by the Government, yet assuming, for the present, that it was so conveyed to the petitioner, its perusal itself was indicative of the fact that the contract was yet to be negotiated and formalized and thereafter to be executed after approval by the Finance Department and the Law Department---Nothing had come on the record to establish that such stages and steps had been taken and finalized---Such an inchoate process meant to arrive at a contract did not confer any indefeasible right to compel Government by means of a writ in the nature of mandamus to execute and implement the formal contract with the petitioner---Mere fact that the petitioner was the lowest bidder would not clothe him with a right or…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492