Case Details

Citation(s)
2016 SLG 1884 2016 SLD 1884 2016 PLJ 649 2016 PLJ 747
Lahore High Court
W.P. No, 39291 of 2015 and C.M. No, 7942 of 2015, 28/1/2016
ABID AZIZ SHEIKH AND SHAHID KARIM, JJ

Kamil Khan Mumtaz Etc.VSProvince Of Punjab And Others

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 199

Keywords: Result: Application allowed ORDER C.M. No, 7942/2015 ' This application for grant of interim relief has been filed by the petitioners in Writ Petition No, 39291/2015, which has been filed by way of public interest litigation. 2. Brief facts are that in order to cater for traffic congestion and future transport demand in city of Lahore, a metro train project was proposed by Government of Punjab. To execute said project, the Punjab Mass Transat Authority (PMA) was established under Punjab Mass Transat Authority Act, 2015 which entered into contract dated 20.4.2015 with Chinese contractor M/S C.R- NORINCO (herein after referred to contractor). Lahore Development Authority (LDA) was assigned civil work part of this project being a nominee of PMA. 3. The petitioners have filed this constitutional petition challenging the legality of aforesaid major transport project commonly known as Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project (herein after referred to project) inter alia on the ground that approval, plans, allocation of funds and construction of said project are violative of various laws including Antiquity Act, 1975 (Act of 1975), the Punjab Special Premises (Preservation) Ordinance, 1985 (Ordinance of 1985), Punjab Heritage Foundation Act, 2005 (Act of 2005), various international conventions (being construction carried out near to immoveable antiquity properties and special premises). It is further averred in petition that said project also violate various Articles of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (Constitution) including Articles 9, 10-A, 14, 23, 24, 25, 28, 32, 38 and 140-A of the Constitution. It is also inter alia alleged that entire process of tendering, awarding of contract and preparation of feasibility reports are sham and in violation of PPRA laws and also does not meet transparency criteria and level playing field for interested bidders. The writ petition is accompanied with an application for grant of interim relief with following prayer: "Instant application may very kindly be allowed all construction works near the monuments/heritage site as detailed in writ petition within area of 200 feet as directed in Section 23 of the…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register